The Regulatory Review is a publication from the University of Pennsylvania Law School covering regulation, administrative law, policy and legal scholarship.
HN links it in threads on regulation, the Major Questions doctrine, voter ID and the Cass Sunstein-era regulatory review, where commenters debate the substance.
I was interested, but also didn't want to scrub through a podcast. Summary:
Cass Sunstein was the administer of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The OIRA is given the remit to review drafted rules (ie regulations) that various federal agencies want to enact. The OIRA is supposed to perform an external cost-benefit analysis of the proposed regulations. OIRA is suppose to turn around rulings in 90 days.
While Cass Sunstein was administrator (2009 to 2012), various pieces of regulation were submitted for review, and ended up being reviewed for ~3+ years. Examples include:
* Requiring rear-view cameras (submitted for review in 2011, regulation finally passed in 2014 with a 2018 deadline for compliance)
* The silicosis workplace safety regulations (as mentioned - submitted in 2011, finally passed review in 2013)
* Coal ash handling regulations (from the EPA) delayed from 2009 to 2014
For the specific case of silicosis specifically, it doesn't appear that the OIRA ended up blocking the regulation, though it certainly slowed it down.
Some news articles:
* https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/white-house-delayed-rule-protect-workers-silica-dust
* https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-regulations-oira/
* https://www.theregreview.org/2013/11/26/26-verchick-silica/
It is worth noting that these delays continued after Sunstein left office, and there's certainly evidence of OIRA significantly delaying review…
> Look at the treatment of Boeing after 2 airplane crashes for example
Well, Boeing was taken to task not for trying to innovate and making mistakes but for lying (fraud) and regulatory capture of the FAA (something a smaller competitor can’t do and in fact likely prevents smaller competitors). As an investor, the former should make you wary and as a flier the latter should make you scared.
> The US has particulate air pollution that is half of South Korea's and a quarter of China. It is a pretty reasonable guess that air pollution would be mostly industrial production that the US would shut down for environmental concerns.
Considering the primary stated motivator by many industrial companies for outsourcing to China was labor costs and not environmental regulations, I wouldn’t be so confident in this claim. This is borne out by research which tries to compare environmental regulations across regulatory regimes:
> In our newest research, we compared risk regulation in China and the United States, and we have also found a more complex pattern that does not support the longstanding conventional view of U.S. regulation being much more stringent than in China.
https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/20/xu-wiener-comparing-us-chinese-environmental-risk-regulation/
> * US labour laws are an impediment. That new fab plant that TSMC was trying to build in the US seemed to be falling over because it was illegal to use skilled, experienced labour.
I don’t know what you’re…
> There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
You're wondering off and getting lost in the weeds with your example.
Twitter replied on its platform using a new mechanism that it created. Trying to twist that reply into an "edit" (with the implication that it's some kind of illegitimate corruption of the work replied to) is drifting towards a denial of free speech and other nonsensical implications.
> When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
On Section 230 more generally:
Correcting a Persistent Myth About the Law that Created the Internet (https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-persistent-myth-about-law-that-created-the-internet/):
> Understanding section 230’s history is essential to informing the current debate about the law. And that history tells us that one of the main reasons for enacting section 230 was to encourage online services to moderate content....
> Section 230’s “findings” states that the internet offers “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” Nothing in section 230’s history, however, suggests that this goal requires platforms to be “neutral.” Indeed, section 230 allows platforms to develop different content standards, and customers ultimately can determine whether those standards meet their expectations. [Emphasis mine.]
It is fairly true (yeah, it's more complicated than a simple flat comparison, but in general, yes the EU and elsewhere does a better job and takes a more proactive approach). Also, nice throwaway account.
California is not the US (and frankly much of the US balks at California attempts to push things from gas mileage standards to any environmental quality standard to privacy, etc), and since the tail end of the Reagan years the US has largely given up its affirmative regulatory concerns to the EU. We're great at providing space for for-profit middlemen, but categorically mediocre or worse on preventative concerns.
* https://www.safeopedia.com/2/4270/ehs/comparing-eu-health-safety-laws-across-the-pond
* https://www.theregreview.org/2013/01/01/01-oxholm-ppr-vogel/
* https://info.orrsafety.com/safety-hub/usa-vs-europe-biggest-difference-in-worker-safety
* https://www.fooddocs.com/post/food-safety-standards
* https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system
I don’t see how having article III remedies addresses the separation of powers issue. It just means you can kinda maybe fix up the damage afterward.
I think it’s fair to ask how far a non-delegation principle should go. There is clearly a continuum between legislation and enforcement discretion. But does that mean we should have no non-delegation principle at all? Is there a definable middle ground between Congress leaving it to executive discretion address technical minutea and Congress delegating oversight over entire sections of the economy to unelected bodies that can serve as judge, jury, and executioner?
There are ways to maintain an administrative state without stuffing everything into the executive branch: https://www.theregreview.org/2019/12/18/rappaport-stronger-separation-powers-administrative-agencies/
I found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself.
FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years.
[1] https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/
[2] https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehicle-backing-safety-fact-sheet.pdf
[3] https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back-over-acciden/