OIRA@2050

Editor’s Note: For a discussion about the resurgence of interest in implementing a regulatory budget, please see here.

From: L’Osservatorio AIR

Fabrizio Di Mascio

For more than 35 years, federal regulatory agencies have been required to notify the public about their upcoming rules in the United States to ensure the transparency of the rulemaking process. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that Cabinet departments, independent agencies, and independent regulatory agencies publish “regulatory flexibility agendas” in the Federal Register each April and October describing regulatory actions they are developing that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further, Executive Order  12866 requires the same agencies to “prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator” of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Editor’s Note: A substantial difference between US and EU regulatory processes is the EU’s use of the so-called “precautionary principle.” For more information on the EU’s “antithesis of science” approach to regulation, see here.

From: Regulatory Studies Center | Columbian College of Arts and Sciences

By Susan E. Dudley & Kai Wegrich

Download the full report

The quality and extent of government regulation is “a major determinant of prosperity.”[1] As the World Bank observes, “a thriving private sector—with new firms entering the market, creating jobs and developing innovative products—contributes to a more prosperous society,” [2] “promotes growth and expands opportunities for poor people.”[3]

Editor’s Note: Rhode Island Governor Gina M. Raimondo’s Executive Order 15-07, IMPROVING RHODE ISLAND’S REGULATORY CLIMATE TO CREATE OPPORTUNITY, provides an examplary model of how states can use regulatory reform to improve their citizen’s lives. The complete Executive Order is attached here. Below are excerpts. For a discussion of OIRA Administrator Shelanski’s comments on the bipartisan nature of centralized regulatory review, see here.

WHEREAS, outdated, superfluous, or vague rules often impose unnecessary costs and burdens on municipalities, small businesses, and other regulated entities; and

WHEREAS, Rhode Island citizens deserve better access to regulatory information and faster responses from government; and

OIRA is under constant criticism for failure to disclose all of its discussions with agency officials during their review of a regulation.

Disclosure of such discussions would invite grandstanding not a substantive discussion of the issues.

Much to his credit, Administrator Shelanski made the following statement at a Congressional hearing:

“That executive order has been interpreted across all Administrations –Republic and Democrat—to embody the deliberative process exception of staff level communications and we do not disclose those to the public. It is to protect the integrity of process.”

The Center for Progressive Reform reports:

“Obama’s guy was not budging on this one.”

Over a period to several years CRE has conducted an extensive public outreach program to develop a science based program for addressing emissions from new coal fired plants. See the CRE Option.

From: Inside EPA

Dawn Reeves

As EPA considers whether to require new coal plants to install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), critics and supporters are offering different options for how the agency can drop the requirement without abandoning its effort to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new power plants.

For example, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), a group that charges that the CCS mandate is unlawful because it violates the Data Quality Act (DQA), is suggesting in an options paper that EPA issue an “interim” rule that sets a standard for new coal plants that is just shy of CCS, while conducting a peer review on the state of carbon capture technology.

This morning, March 9, 2015 in the Ninth Circuit in the case W. Harkonen v. USDOJ  the Department of Justice stated that although the DQA does not give members of the public the right for judicial review of agency denials of Requests for Correction it does provide OMB with the right to address any such requests for correction. The Department explained to the judges the way the  DQA is “policed is through OMB“ including  the  statement  that OMB has the right to “take action” if agencies are not living up to their DQA duties.

Editor’s Note: CRE’s analysis of centralized regulatory review in the U.K. may be found here and a comparison of the UK review system with its US counterpart is here. CRE Brazil’s advice to the Brazilian government on centralized regulatory review is available in English and Portuguese. For a discussion of the history of regulatory budget proposals, see here.

From: RegBlog |Penn Program on Regulation

Rebecca Strauss

It is often said that academics could do a better job speaking to the general public. It can probably also be said that academics could use a dose of looking at the forest as well as the trees. In the area of regulatory management, both appear to be true.

Editor’s Note: The P3 program provides social entrepreneurs with a platform to help build and shape federal policies. For a discussion of how social entrepreneurs create federal regulatory policy, see here.

From: FindYouthInfo.gov

Performance Partnership Pilots Notice Inviting Applications Frequently Asked Questions

January 16, 2015 Updated February 24, 2015

A. Public Input

A-1. How did the Administration seek input from the field to help develop P3?

From: L’Osservatorio AIR

Review by Gianluca Sgueo

Davidson N.M. and E. J. Leib, 2015. Regleprudence – at OIRA and Beyond, The Georgetown Law Journal, 103:259-315.