1 Mar 2011
The REINS Act:
Would it work as intended?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
House and Senate Republicans have proposed legislation (HR 10, S 299) intending to substantially change federal regulatory practice. The proposed Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (The "REINS Act").
What is the bill supposed to do? What is it likely to do?
More...21 Jan 2011
Regulatory Review in the Obama Administration:
Clinton and Obama directives compared
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
On January 18, President Obama issued an executive order that modifies longstanding principles and procedures for centralized regulatory oversight conducted by by the Office of Management and Budget.
The three tables below provide a side-by-side comparison of the new text with the text of Executive Order 12,866, issued by President Clinton in 1993. To guide readers in making comparisons, text that is underlined is the same in both documents.
Interpreting such texts requires close attention to detail. For this reason, we have color-coded both texts as follows:
GREEN HIGHLIGHT: Directive language (e.g., "shall", "must") with tightly defined verbs (e.g., "identify", "assess", "design", "maximize", "promulgate") often applied to concrete objects (e.g., "net benefits", "duplicative", "burdensome", "least burdensome", "most cost-effective") sometimes comprehensively (e.g., "only").
Objective performance evaluation generally is possible.
YELLOW HIGHLIGHT: Hortatory language (e.g., "should", "may") with loosely defined verbs (e.g., "consider", "promote", "endeavor to provide", "harmonize"), or used to modify directive language ambiguously (e.g., "where feasible and appropriate", "to the extent feasible").
Objective performance evaluation typically is impossible.
Where GREEN text is preceded or followed by YELLOW text, the result is always weaker.
More...
26 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 4:
Irreconcilable differences
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page has a pair of commentaries taking nearly opposite positions on the recent controversy over TSA's screening procedures and practices. Gabriel Schoenfeld defends TSA's invasive pat-downs as necessary to prevent terror attacks using non-metallic weapons such as C-4 and PETN. Peggy Noonan says TSA has gone too far.
Schoenfeld and Noonan are opposed for at least two reasons:
- They have different perspectives about the tolerable risk of terrorism via aircraft. Noonan would tolerate higher risks than Schoenfeld.
- They have different perceptions of the intangible costs of enhanced screening. Noonan believes public support for TSA is declining (and will continue to do so) because invasive screening is humiliating and undignified. Schoenfeld believes these are acceptable costs to achieve better security.
25 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 3:
Does TSA invite terrorism?
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
Controversy about the Transportation Security Administration's new screening technologies and procedures continues to intensify. The White House is reacting defensively. The chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is defending the new procedures. Opponents of advanced imaging technology have attempted to organize a nationwide "Opt-Out" yesterday, the busiest airline travel day of the year.
Travelers electing to opt-out face mandatory, invasive pat-downs. Should the number of opt-outers be substantial, the queue for invasive pat-downs could stretch TSA resources beyond their capacity. This is the result organizers intend. They hope to persuade TSA to relent on its one-size-fits-all approach to airport security. TSA Administrator John Pistole first said he would not budge and criticized proponents of the opt-out campaign for causing massive delays and missed flights, then appeared to give ground after his position was undermined by Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama. According to Pistole, the new, invasive pat-down procedure is needed to prevent threats such as the so-called Christmas Day bombing attempt 11 months ago. (The implied 11-month delay in TSA's response is not explained.)
Pistole displays a tone of bureaucratic defensiveness that suggests he's primarily concerned with how he would be treated in the event that an aircraft is successfully targeted by a terrorist:
"I would hate to think what happens if the government caves in on this and relaxes these procedures and someone manages to get on board a plane and causes harm," Pistole said Monday in an interview on NBC's "TODAY" show. "Imagine what you will be asked."
A closer look suggests suggests that TSA's screening procedures are illogical even if Pistole's position is taken at face value. This reinforces the hypothesis we previously suggested, but considered very unlikely, that the reason TSA is forcing invasive pat-downs is to overcome travelers' objections to advanced imaging. If travelers object strenuously enough to invasive pat-downs, they will begin to prefer advanced imaging technology as the lesser of two evils. This is a sensible strategy if TSA intends to replace all metal detectors with advanced imaging devices but recognizes that travelers will agree to it only if they have no other option.
More...24 Nov 2010
Airport Security, Part 2:
"Analysis of the "don't touch my junk" episode
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
John Tyner, heretofore an anonymous blogger, is now a public celebrity. According to Tyner, TSA forced him to submit to an invasive pat-down, which led to his now famous imprecation. Apparently, millions have seen the video he recorded of the encounter; his description of it and his several follow-up blog posts reveal much more about inherent flaws in TSA's airport security regime.
More...14 Jan 2010
Paperwork Reduction Act
How to improve implementation of the law
by Richard Belzer
in Paperwork Burdens
On October 28, 2009, the Office of Management and Budget solicited comments on its implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of the PRA is to minimize burdens on the public resulting from the federal government's information requests.
Neutral Source managing editor Richard Belzer submitted comments on his own behalf. These comments eventually will be uploaded by OMB to Regulations.Gov, the Federal government's web portal for all regulatory matters. (Clicking on the link above will reveal a fundamental weakness of the web portal: Unless the agency chooses to include information identifying the name and organizational affiliation of the submitter, there is no way to find any specific comment without opening them all.)
In response to numerous requests, a copy of these comment is posted to the Library.
More...5 Jul 2009
"Mission Creep" at TSA:
The perils of discretionary authority
by Richard Belzer
in Litigation, Regulatory Policy
Wall Street Journal aviation columnist Scott McCartney reports that the Transportation Security Administration's recent efforts to expand its domain into general law enforcement has encountered legal obstacles. More...
25 Feb 2009
Regulatory Review in the Obama Administration, Part 3:
Cass Sunstein and his critics
by Richard Belzer
in People & Institutions, Regulatory Policy
Long time University of Chicago Law (and recent Harvard Law) professor Cass Sunstein is expected to be nominated by President Obama to be the new Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. OIRA is the statutory office within the White House Office of Management and Budget that, among other things, has conducted centralized regulatory oversight on behalf of the president since 1981.
When Susan Dudley was nominated in 2006 to head this office, Neutral Source published an eight-part analysis of her "paper trail," which is summarized here. We undertook this task because her nomination generated controversy from certain activist groups, most notably Public Citizen, and we found significant factual discrepancies between the actual content of this paper trail and her critics claims about it.
We intend to repeat this effort, but Sunstein presents an unusually difficult challenge.
More...24 Feb 2009
Regulatory Review in the Obama Administration, Part 2:
Alive and well, reports to the contrary notwithstanding
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
In a February 17 article, Politico reporter Josh Gerstein claims that "[i]n his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama shut down his predecessor’s system for reviewing regulations" and "managed to take all these actions with nary a mention from the White House press corps." Gerstein further claims that this "escaped notice because they were never announced by the White House Press Office and were never placed on the White House web site."
Gerstein's reporting is erroneous.
More...
3 Feb 2009
Regulatory Review in the Obama Administration, Part 1:
Executive Order 13497
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
On January 30, President Obama signed Executive Order 13497, which begins the process of changing the way the Office of Management and Budgwet performs centralized review of draft proposed and draft final regulations. In a memorandum to agency heads, the President also announced a plan to produce "a set of recommendations" within 100 days (~ May 14, 2009).
Texts for both documents are provided below.
More...12 Nov 2008
Petition for Correction to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning the Draft 2008 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation
by Richard Belzer
in Information Quality
On November 7, 2008, Regulatory Checkbook -- Neutral Sourcve's sister nonprofit organization -- filed a public comment on the Office of Management and Budget's draft 2008 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation.
This public comment also was submitted as a formal Petition for Correction under OMB's Information Quality Guidelines (PDF). Under those guidelines, influential information OMB disseminates must be substantively and presentionally objective, transparent and reproducible, and provide utility for its intended purposes of informing Congress and the public.
The draft Report does not satisfy these information quality standards.
OMB is obligated by its own guidelines to respond within 60 days (i.e., by January 6, 2009).
More...
25 Sep 2008
Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation:
2008 draft report published for public comment
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Economics
The Office of Management and Budget has published its 2008 draft report to Congress on the benefits and costs of federal reguilation. OMB is required by lawe to publish this report every year.
Public comments are due by Friday, November 7, 2008.
More...1 Feb 2008
Objectivity in Risk Assessment:
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, Part 4
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy, Regulatory Science
The subject of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear weapons program is not the dominant subject of news reporting that it was when we first posted on it. However, a conventional narrative has developed to the effect that Iran's nuclear ambitions and developmental efforts are no longer a legitimate concern.
Today we hope to finish our series on this subject showing why this narrative is based on value-based preferences that various people and interest groups hold, and is not supported by the NIE itself.
More...
6 Dec 2007
Objectivity in Risk Assessment:
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, Part 3
by Richard Belzer
in Information Quality, Regulatory Policy
The web is chock full of commentary on the recently released summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. (We emphasize summary because the body of the NIE remains classified.) We've posted here and here on the NIE as a risk assessment document, noting that it claims to be an objective assessment not confounded by risk management (i.e., policy or political) concerns.
We've read much (but by no means all) of this news and commnetary and drawn some inferences we hope are useful. More...
4 Dec 2007
Objectivity in Risk Assessment:
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, Part 2
by Richard Belzer
in Regulatory Policy
Early today we posted the unclassified summary of the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities. We said that while we could not comment on its substance -- the details leading to the published judgments remain classified -- the document itself appeared to be notable for its transparency of language, recognition of uncertainty, and the clarity with which it defined the probabilistic language used to describe both the substantive judgments reported and analysts' confidence in them.
Today's news reporting on the NIE shows why it is so important that risk assessments be performed in an objective manner: risk managers, other political actors, and the press often want risk assessments to support predefined narratives and policy views. In less than a day, many of them have stripped away the NIE's careful calibration of uncertainty, suggested that its judgments are colored by the expectation that it would be made public, and undermined the case for performing risk assessment by using it for partisan political purposes. More...
