OIRA@2050

Editor’s Note:  OMB Watch’s contention that there is a “fundamental principle of modern workplace safety laws” which holds that indications which “suggest” risk justify regulation is simply not true.  Among other problems with this unsupported contention is that it contradicts President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 on improving regulation and regulatory review.  The January 2011 Executive Order explicitly reaffirmed the long-standing principle that agencies must “propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs….”

From: OMB Watch

From: RegBlog

Jerry Ellig and Patrick A. McLaughlin

How well do federal agencies conduct the regulatory analysis required in Executive Order 12866 and use it to make decisions?

By IAN URBINA

WASHINGTON — It is a political tradition that is almost as old as the White House: a president on the way out, unconstrained by electoral considerations, fast-tracks a flurry of contentious regulations in the waning hours of his term, sometimes even cutting short review from industry or the public.

As he was leaving, President George W. Bush expanded Justice Department surveillance powers, relaxed rules on certain types of coal mining and altered protections for endangered animals. President Bill Clintonpushed through new rules on chemicals in drinking water and on workplace injuries caused by repetitive movements.

Editor’s Note:  The complete paper is attached below.

From: Mercatus Center

by Colleen Haight, Derek Thieme

Abstract

ENHANCING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AMERICAN STANDARDS SYSTEM BY RENEWING CIRCULAR A-119

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
OMB-2012-0003
Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities

See the comments of Scott Raferty attached below.

Rafferty Comment OMB-2012-0003

Editor’s Note:  The Regisration link for the event is here. 

From: The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

From: Immigration Daily

by Angelo Paparelli

With the 2012 presidential campaign in full throb, candidates Obama and Romney are embracing “the vision thing” — that nemesis of the first President Bush whose reelection effort reportedly failed because he did not “frame his positions on individual issues in a compelling and unified manner.” The two de factonominees paint a starkly different picture of where each would take America and of government’s role in getting us there. Surprisingly, however, on one point they agree: The cumulative burden of federal regulations is simply overwhelming.

Letter from Institute for Policy Integrity/New York University School of Law to Committee on Regulation, Administrative Conference of the United States.

Subject: Committee on Regulation—Comments on Proposed Recommendations for Review of Regulatory Analysis Requirements (posted April 24, 2012)

The Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law submits the following comments on the ACUS Committee on Regulation’s proposed recommendations for review of regulatory analysis requirements. Policy Integrity is a non‐partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of government decisionmaking through advocacy and scholarship in the fields of administrative law, cost‐benefit analysis, and public policy.

Complete Letter: Policy_Integrity_Comments_on_Draft_ACUS_Recs_on_Regulatory_Analysis_Reqs

From The Hill

Lefty groups fear White House reg reform plan will slash green protections

By Ben Geman

Several progressive groups are warning that White House plans to better align U.S. regulations with other countries’ could weaken environmental and public health protections.

The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), the Union of Concerned Scientists, OMB Watch and Public Citizen have all issued statements that are critical or at least highly skeptical of the White House executive order issued Tuesday.

Here’s OMB Watch on Thursday: