Regulatory Transactions

From: Lexology

Marc T. Campopiano, Andrea M. Hogan and Joshua W. Marnitz  | Latham & Watkins LLP

On September 22, 2015, the White House, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), issued guidance to the heads of certain federal departments and agencies[1] (the Agencies) establishing metrics for the permitting and environmental review of infrastructure projects in the United States (the Guidance). The Guidance is intended to expand the use and reframe the purpose of the publicly accessible online Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard (the Dashboard). To that end, the Guidance establishes a set of metrics to track permit and review timelines for certain infrastructure projects, and sets a schedule for collecting and posting that data to the Dashboard. It then outlines an approach for capturing and reporting the environmental and community impacts resulting from the federal permitting and review process.

Editor’s Note: The FDA’s labeling decisions are subject to the Data Quality Act; agencies are not permitted to rely on WHO or other reports that do not comply with OMB’s information quality standards. For more information, see 1) CRE’s challenge to HHS use of a WHO dietary report and 2) the letter from the Secretary’s office informing the WHO that its study failed to meet US quality standards.

From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation

Alina Artunian

***

Editor’s Note: The following are excerpts from joint PRA comments by major banking and financial services organizations to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The complete comments are available here.

We, the undersigned trade associations representing the financial services industry, write to express our concern with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s (Bureau) request for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to conduct a national web-based survey of 8,000 individuals as part of the Bureau’s study of overdraft protection services. We appreciate the Bureau’s consideration of consumers’ experience with and understanding of overdraft services. However, we are concerned that the Bureau did not include in its submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a draft survey instrument on which the public could comment, despite OMB guidance requiring publication of the survey simultaneous with the Bureau’s request for comment. We urge the Bureau to re-submit its information collection request with the draft survey instrument.