Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

OMB Seeks Public Input on New Executive Order on Regulatory Review

Late last week, I sent a letter to Peter Orszag, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget that, among other things, called on OMB to allow for public participation in the design of its new Executive Order governing federal regulatory review. I’m happy to see that OMB has decided to do just that, with its announcement in Thursday’s Federal Register that it would “invite public comments on how to improve the process and principles governing regulation.”

As OMB observes, the White House has no obligation to seek public comment on executive orders. The Federal Register notice says:

Executive Orders are not subject to notice and comment procedures, and as a general rule, public comment is not formally sought before they are issued. In this case, however, there has been an unusually high level of public interest, and because of the evident importance and fundamental nature of the relevant issues, the Director of OMB invites public comments on the principles and procedures governing regulatory review.

OMB is exactly right about that, and I congratulate Director Orszag for opening the process up for broader input, particularly in the absence of a formal requirement. It’s also a good and refreshing sign that OMB listened to the suggestion that they needed to solicit input, and then acted on it. It’s hard to imagine the Bush OMB doing the same.

The Executive Order that emerges from this process will set the rules of the road by which every major regulation to emerge from the federal government will be promulgated. So this will affect issues of health, safety, the environment and more. The Bush Administration created a system biased against protective regulations, and we’ve all paid the price for it with weakened protections. The new Executive Order needs to replace the Bush system with one that recognizes that the various regulatory agencies have a statutory obligation to regulate in their respective areas of expertise, and not set OIRA up as a barrier to much needed, and in many cases long overdue, protections.

OMB is about a quarter of the way through a 100-day consultation period with the heads of executive departments and agencies, gathering suggestions on the new Executive Order on regulatory review. I’m confident that the public input OMB will get will be an excellent complement to that, and just as confident that the comments from the public will offer a different and valuable perspective on how regulatory review ought to operate.

I’d offer two more thoughts about this process. First, the deadline for the public to submit comments on the new Executive Order on regulatory review is only 18 days away. That’s a short process, and it’ll probably limit the input that OMB will get. For their part, the Member Scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform won’t let the short timeline stand in the way.

Second, and related, while this initial comment period is a terrific step toward allowing public participation in the design of the new Executive Order on regulatory review, I still believe the comment period I recommended to Director Orszag in my letter last week is necessary. Once a draft of the new Order has been prepared, OMB should open the process up for at least 90 days of public comment on the draft. This is too big and too important an issue to do otherwise. While unusual for Executive Orders, a post-draft comment period is more than justified, as OMB’s notice in the Federal Register acknowledges.

Public comments for this pre-draft comments window can be sent electronically (oira_submission@omb.eop.gov ) or by fax (202-395–7245). The deadline is March 16, 2009.

Showing 2,829 results

Rena Steinzor | February 27, 2009

OMB Seeks Public Input on New Executive Order on Regulatory Review

Late last week, I sent a letter to Peter Orszag, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget that, among other things, called on OMB to allow for public participation in the design of its new Executive Order governing federal regulatory review. I’m happy to see that OMB has decided to do just […]

James Goodwin | February 26, 2009

Another Twist in the Mercury Air Pollution Saga

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not be accepting an appeal of a case involving the Bush Administration’s regulatory plan for reducing air mercury emissions from power plants.  For the last two decades, the regulation of mercury air pollution has been caught up in a long and winding journey reminiscent of Homer’s […]

Christopher Schroeder | February 25, 2009

Midnight Regulations: Congress Lends a Hand

The following is cross-posted by permission from Executive Watch, a blog maintained by the Duke Law School Public Law Program.   Every time the presidency has changed parties in recent years, the outgoing president has issued regulations in the final months of his presidency implementing policies at odds with the policies of the incoming president.  […]

Yee Huang | February 24, 2009

Water Footprints – Silently Splashing Along

Walk into any grocery store and you’ll find a barrage of labels on every product that proudly and loudly proclaims its ecofriendly pedigree: Organic!  Fair trade and shade-grown!  Local!  An article last week in the Wall Street Journal posits two of the latest entries into the fray: virtual water and water footprint.      Relatively new […]

Matthew Freeman | February 24, 2009

Time Magazine on Cass Sunstein/Cost-Benefit

Time Magazine has a piece this week on Cass Sunstein’s likely nomination to be the Obama Administration’s “regulatory czar” (director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and the debate over the use of cost-benefit analysis it has touched off. Despite Professor Sunstein's progressive views on most issues, progressives are concerned that his methods […]

Matthew Freeman | February 23, 2009

Milwaukee Reporters Earn Journalism Award for BPA Reporting

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger are about to pick up some well deserved hardware for their series on bisphenol A (BPA) – a plastic hardener that leaches from plastic when microwaved. The substance causes neurological and developmental hazards, but it is ubiquitous in food storage containers, including water bottles and baby bottles. […]

James Goodwin | February 20, 2009

The Backdoor Discrimination of Cost-Benefit Analysis

In recent weeks, an unusual convergence of events has served to elevate somewhat the public profile of cost-benefit analysis (CBA).  Before then, CBA was an obscure and highly complex tool of policy analysis—the kind of thing that hardcore policy wonks would wonk about when the subjects of their usual policy wonkery weren’t wonkish enough.  Foreseeable […]

Holly Doremus | February 19, 2009

CO2 and the Clean Air Act

This item is cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet, “the Environment, Law and Policy Blog.”    New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has granted the Sierra Club’s petition to reconsider a memorandum issued by outgoing Administrator Stephen Johnson in December.   Almost two years after the Supreme Court declared, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that CO2 is […]

Matthew Freeman | February 19, 2009

CPR’s Mendelson in NYT ‘Debate’ on CO2 Regulation

CPR Member Scholar Nina Mendelson has a piece today in The New York Times’s “Room for Debate” feature on the news that EPA is working its way toward regulating carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.  As The Times quite directly and correctly puts it, “Under orders from the Supreme Court, which the Bush […]