More on the Congressional Review Act ....

... which I really know little about.

It looks to be an instrument to reign in the bureaucracy that has been more or less dormant for twenty years, but might be ready to be unleashed.

For more:

- CRS: The Congressional Review Act: FrequentlyAsked Questions.
- Heritage Foundation: Stars Align for the Congressional Review Act.
- CPR: The Congressional Review Act: A Primer.
- The Hill: The Congressional Review Act, rarely used and (almost always) unsuccessful.
- The Fiscal Times: The Latest Republican Trick to Roll Back Obama’s Rules.

From Washington Post: Trump may unwittingly agree to tie his hands, limit executive power

Here's commentary on efforts Congress seems to ne making in order to reign in the executive branch. In 2305 we will discuss the expansion of executive power over American history. This happened largely because Congress allowed it to happen by establishing new agencies and department to fulfill new functions. The growth began in the late 19th century, and picked up steam in the 30s (the New Deal) and the 60s (the Great Society).

A goal of conservatives has been to limit this growth, if not turn it back. The following article discusses how Republicans in Congress, seeing an opportunity to do so, are developing strategies to make it a reality.

This involves the use of something called the Congressional Review Act, a law that was part of the Contract with America. It is specifically designed to allow Congress the opportunity to undo rules passed by the bureaucracy.

- Click here for the article.

Donald Trump is eager to score some early wins, so that he can look like an effective leader, and congressional Republicans are fixing to give him bills he can sign immediately upon taking office. But, for the new president, some might bring unintended consequences.

The Congressional Review Act is such an incredibly powerful tool that it has only been used once in the two decades it has been on the books. In the next couple months, it will probably be used about half a dozen times.

Somewhere around 150 rules finalized by the Obama administration – going as far back as last June – could be overturned under the CRA, if Congress passes a “joint resolution of disapproval” and the new president signs off.

High on the chopping block: Regulations which would curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, prohibit coal-mining companies from engaging in activities that permanently pollute streams used for drinking water and increasing the salary threshold below which employees are entitled to overtime pay. Industry lobbyists are also pushing GOP lawmakers to get of nondiscrimination and fair pay rules for federal contractors.

And a bunch of companies are trying to drum up AstroTurf support for rescinding Energy Department efficiency standards for dehumidifiers, battery chargers and air conditioners.
But here’s the rub: the executive branch may never again be allowed to regulate on these subjects if the Congressional Review Act is employed. It is hard to overstate what a big deal that is and how much it raises the stakes. If the overtime rule gets rescinded, for example, any new overtime requirements would need to pass Congress. If you know anything about the Hill, you know that will happen – when pigs fly…

Every modern president, no matter his party, has not been able to resist expanding the regulatory state and trying to usurp Congress’s power, at least to some degree. The power that comes with controlling the executive branch has tended to seduce even the most conscientiously conservative appointees once they get their security details.

From the Atlantic: Medical Marijuana Won’t Become Legal Anytime Soon - A recent notice from the Drug Enforcement Administration denies a petition to have the drug accepted for medical use at the federal level.

From our discussion in class this evening.

- Click here for the article.

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced Thursday that it would reject petitions to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule II drug or lower. As a Schedule I drug, marijuana use is strictly prohibited outside of research. A Schedule II classification would have allowed its usage as a federally-approved prescription medical therapy.The rejection, according to a Federal Register notice, was based on an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services.

According to NPR, in a letter sent to several petitioners and governors before the official notice, DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg characterized the decision as one not rooted in moral concerns or even lingering doubts about the dangerousness of marijuana, but about the legal obligation for Schedule II drugs to have medical efficacy. “This decision isn’t based on danger,” Rosenberg said. “This decision is based on whether marijuana, as determined by the Food and Drug Administration, is a safe and effective medicine.” Rosenberg, who has acknowledged the “promise” of some cannabinoids in medicine, has also called the prospect of “smoking the leaf of marijuana”—its most common usage—a “joke.”

The notice from the DEA spelled out three reasons why marijuana would not be rescheduled: a potential for and history of abuse and addiction, lack of accepted medical use, and a lack of safety information. The last two reasons are part of the drug’s failure of a five-part FDA test that states that for a medicinal drug “the drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible,” “there must be adequate safety studies,” “there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy,” “the drug must be accepted by qualified experts,” and “the scientific evidence must be widely available.” The clinical data that could even meet the FDA’s review standards was subject to intense scrutiny. In the end, the FDA could only find 11 research articles that met its review qualifications of being randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

From the UK Indepedent: Texas governor Greg Abbott ‘secretly’ proposes rule requiring burial and cremation of aborted fetuses - The governor will bypass state legislation to implement the rule

A twist on the rule making process.

- Click here for the article.

Only days after reproductive rights advocates celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a law that would have shuttered the vast majority of abortion clinics in Texas, Gov Greg Abbott quietly proposed new rules that would require aborted foetuses to be buried or cremated.

Mr Abbott published the proposal 1 July to be available for public comment for 30 days. Following that period, the new rules could easily be implemented, bypassing a vote by state legislators.

“Governor Abbott believes human and foetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,” the governor’s spokesperson, Ciara Matthews, told theAssociated Press.

In Texas, state agencies can implement new rules without receiving formal approval from lawmakers. Although, it is unusual for governors to propose the rule themselves, but agency staff. Along with his appointed director of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mr Abbott proposed the new rules without formal review period with the agency.

Abortion rights advocates see the move as yet another effort by the anti-abortion governor to make abortion inaccessible for Texas women, and the new rules would bring non-medical ceremonial, non-medical processes into medical regulation.

“I think the biggest point is you have [a state] agency, through the governor’s fiat, propose his own idea of tradition and ceremony into a space where it doesn’t belong,” legal counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas Blake Rocap told The Independent.

From Elizabeth Warren: Corporate Capture of the Rulemaking Process

The possible VP candidate comments on the current state of regulatory capture in the rulemaking process. The process is biased towards corporate interests from the start.

- Click here for the article.

Regulatory capture is a big deal. It is one way in which powerful corporations rig the system to work for themselves—and the rest of America pays the price. The tilt in Congress is pretty much out there for everyone to see, but corporate influence works its magic even better in the shadows—and that’s where rulemaking occurs. This essay focuses on one aspect of this pervasive phenomenon: the capture of agencies as they write the rules.

When it comes to undue industry influence, our rulemaking process is broken from start to finish. At every stage, the process is loaded with opportunities for powerful industry groups to tilt the scales in their favor.

The tilt starts early. For example, a 2011 study of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records from 1994 to 2009 found that industry groups held a virtual monopoly over informal communications with EPA that occurred before proposed rules on hazardous air pollutants were publicly available. On average, industry groups engaged in 170 times more informal communications with EPA than public interest players—communications that occurred before any proposed rules were even written.

Similarly, with financial regulation, the big banks and their friends have been lobbying the agencies aggressively. Following the worst financial crisis in three generations—one that resulted in taxpayers spending hundreds of billions to bail out the big banks—Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that a crisis of that sort never happened again. This law included a provision called the Volcker Rule to stop banks from engaging in certain kinds of risky behavior. But before that rule was even written, groups representing Wall Street interests met with federal regulators 419 times, accounting for over 93 percent of meetings between federal regulators and external parties about the Rule. Less than 7 percent of meetings were with individuals and groups representing the public interest.

As rules wind their way through the process, the lobbying intensifies. When proposed rulemaking notices are published and the public has a formal opportunity to weigh in, their views are quickly buried in an avalanche of detailed, well-funded, well-credentialed comments from industry insiders and their highly-paid allies. Those EPA rules on dangerous air pollutants? Industry groups submitted 81 percent of the comments during the notice-and-comment period. Public interest groups submitted 4 percent.

From Scotublog: United States v. Texas

The court upheld a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas temporarily halting the president's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program. No substantive decision was made about why it did so, meaning - as I see it - the question about whether the president exceeded - in fact - his authority still needs to be fleshed out. In addition, if he did, how?

- Click here for the summary from Scotublog.

- For facts of the case, click here for Oyez's page on it.

This is the list of the issues raised by the case:

(1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action;

(2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and

(4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

For background on some terms used above:

- Standing.
- Arbitrary and Capricious.
- Administrative Procedures Act.
- Take Care Clause.

Rules in the News

Bloomberg: More Drones for Hire Coming to U.S. Skies in Landmark Rules.

The Obama administration is opening U.S. skies to more commercial drones with long-awaited regulations that the government hopes will spawn new businesses inspecting bridges, monitoring crops and taking aerial photography.

In the most comprehensive set of rules yet for the burgeoning unmanned aircraft industry, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday went far beyond its original restrictive proposal issued last year. Drone operators will be able to petition the agency to fly beyond the horizon, at night and over people if they can show such flights are safe.

"We are in the early days of an aviation revolution that will change the way we do business, keep people safe, and gather information about our world,” President Barack Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “This is just a first step, but this is the kind of innovative thinking that helps make change work for us -- not only to grow the economy, but to improve the lives of the American people."

Constitution Daily: Federal appeals court upholds ‘net neutrality’ rules.

On June 14, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made a two-to-one decision to uphold the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enforce the principle of net neutrality. However, the road leading to the recent decision was fraught with conflict and the aftermath is likely to be the same.

The battle over net neutrality has been a long one fought primarily between the FCC and large internet service providers. The term itself was coined in a paper by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu in 2003 but was little more than just a term until 2010, when the FCC passed the Open Internet Order. The order called for ISPs to honor the principle of net neutrality through transparency on network management practices, refraining from blocking content on their networks, and avoiding unreasonable discrimination against (or favorable treatment towards) content on their networks.

Business News Daily: What You Need to Know About the New Federal Overtime Rules.

A rule change announced May 18 by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) would expand overtime protections to an estimated 4.2 million workers, extending the rule to cover those making less than $47,476 per year and removing long-standing exemptions in the law. Business News Daily dug into the specifics of the new regulation and spoke with labor policy experts and human resources professionals about the anticipated effects of the change, for both employers and workers.

Scheduled to go into effect Dec. 1, 2016, the new rule changes overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime protections. Previously, employees were excluded if they were salaried, earned at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) or were in positions considered executive, administrative or professional. Now, those exemptions will be lifted and the pay threshold for overtime protections will be raised to $913 per week, or an annual salary of $47,476. That pay threshold will be updated once every three years, indexed to wage growth over time.

The Take Care Clause of the Constitution and the Administrative Procurement Act.

Apart from politics - these lie at heart of the dispute in the immigration case discussed in the previous post.

What are they?

- Administrative Procedure Act.
- Take Care Clause.

From Bloomberg: Obama's Gun Control Initiative Challenged in Federal Lawsuit

We discussed in class whether the expansion of background checks for gun buyers - and more specifically the requirement that gun sellers perform the checks - may or may not be constitutional. We don't really know because the court has never ruled on a such a case.

But now they may have the chance.

To be on the safe side - in case the Second Amendment argument fails - a second argument is being presented, that president did not follow the appropriate federal rule making process.

- Click here for the article.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s expansion of background checks for would-be gun buyers is being challenged in a lawsuit by a political activist who claims the changes violate the Constitution and the federal rule-making process.

Stymied by congress in prior attempts to enact gun-control legislation following mass shootings, the president on Jan. 5 announced a new interpretation of already-existing rules defining who is a firearms dealer. The new definition would subject more transactions -- including sales at gun shows and on the Internet -- to background checks, preventing sales to people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Those measures and others were unveiled by Obama in a sometimes tearful televised speech that drew immediate criticism from gun-rights supporters.

“It is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants, each and every one of them, to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office,” attorney Larry Klayman said in a complaint filed at the U.S. court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Klayman, the founder of the political watchdog group Freedom Watch, claims the background-check initiative violates the constitution’s Second Amendment, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.Rule Making

Even if constitutional, the redefinition circumvented the federal rule-making process, he said. Klayman, who said he’s a Florida resident and the owner of two 9-millimeter handguns and one .45 caliber weapon, is seeking a court order blocking the executive action and declaring the measures unlawful.

What is the Congressional Review Act?

It was referred to in the previous post, It's what limits the ability of President Obama to implement his agenda through bureaucratic procedures in the last months of his presidency. So here's more about it:

Links:

- Wikipedia: Congressional Review Act.
- GAO: Congressional Review Act.

It was passed in 1996 not long after the Republican Party won control of the US House of Representatives as part of the Contract with America. It was an attempt to strengthen legislative control of the executive branch - specifically the rule making process.

Here's what Wikipedia offers about it.

The law empowers Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, to overrule a regulation. Congress is given 60 legislative days to disapprove, after which the rule will go into effect. For the regulation to be invalidated, the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the President, or must be passed over the President's veto by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The law requires that any agency promulgating a covered rule must submit a report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General that contains a copy of the rule, a concise general statement describing the rule (including whether it is a major rule), and the proposed effective date of the rule. A covered rule cannot take effect if the report is not submitted.

For context:

- United States House of Representatives elections, 1994.
- Contract with America.
- Rulemaking.
- A Guide to the Rulemaking Process.

From Politico: Obama pushing thousands of new regulations in Year 8 The calendar says there are 13 months left to Barack Obama's presidency. But when it comes to exercising executive power, it's more like five.

A look at how a president can exercise political power when Congress is held by the opposition party and the nation is distracted by a campaign. This is a good look at how the executive branch works.

- Click here for the story.

Nearly 4,000 regulations are squirming their way through the federal bureaucracy in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency — many costing industry more than $100 million — in a mad dash by the White House to push through government actions affecting everything from furnaces to gun sales to Guantánamo.

That means a full court press at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to reduce exposure limits for silica, a chemical used widely in construction and fracking that can cause cancer when inhaled; at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to require more small-scale gun sellers to perform background checks; and at the Food and Drug Administration, to make food manufacturers disclose on product labels how much sugar they add to cranberry juice.

Much of this work will be carried out in the coming months by career bureaucrats working in the bowels of federal agencies, but the cumulative effect adds up to something larger: A final-year sprint by a president intent on using executive power to improve the lives of American workers and consumers — in many instances over loud objections from the businesses that will have to pay for it.

The work must be done swiftly in most cases because any regulation finalized after May
17 or thereabouts risks being blocked by Congress.

. . . The mid-May deadline isn’t statutory or in any way official, but neither is it arbitrary. It arises from the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that gives Congress 60 legislative days to veto, by a special swift procedure, any regulation it dislikes before the rule takes effect.

The president may veto Congress’s veto, as Obama did the one time he faced this situation. But if the 60-day period extends past the inauguration of a new president, and if that president is of the opposing party — a President Donald Trump, say, or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio — any resolution of disapproval against his predecessor will surely go unchallenged.

From the White House: FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

I've yet to find confirmation, but what the president announced yesterday were executive actions that will form the basis of a series of executive orders. The White House posted the following fact sheet detailing their specific plans:

- Click here.

This is in addition to the following: Live Updates: What the President is Doing to Keep Guns Out of the Wrong Hands.

Here's my attempt to summarize the various proposals.

1 - Firearms sellers must have a federal license and must conduct background checks. The Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco, Forearms and Explosives is establishing the rules containing these requirements. Click here for the ATF's rulemaking page. The FBI is improving the background check system so that it works 24/7. Additional staff is to be hired to process these checks.

2 - 200 new ATF agents will be hired to help enforce gun laws. The next budget submitted by the president will request funds for the new personnel. An Internet Investigation Center (not on line yet as I can tell) has been established to track illegal online firearms trafficking, and more people have been hired for the National Integrated Ballistics Information Center.

3 - Half a billion dollars will be requested to expand access to mental health care. The Social Security Administration will issue a rule that will allow (as I interpret it) information it possesses regarding mental health for purposes of background checks. Also, the Department of Homeland Security will issue a rule that will (again as I interpret it) remove legal restrictions on states sharing information about the mental health of interested gun buyers with other states. Click here for the rule making process for SSA, and click here for the rule making process for DHS.

4 -  Three separate executive departments have been directed to "conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology." These are the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

If you are keeping count, 8 separate institutions are involved in implementing these actions. And this is just a summary. The fact sheet goes more in depth.

Two campuses rule on campus carry

- Texas State Issues Recommended Campus Carry Rules.

In recommending how Texas State University should comply with a new state campus carry law, a task force says it shouldn’t provide storage for handguns but should ban the guns from places where students are counseled or children come to campus.

The suggestions, which were issued this week, won't immediately go into effect. University President Denise Trauth is seeking input on the proposals, which need the Texas State University System Board of Regents’ approval. That probably won’t happen until the spring. The law doesn't go into effect until Aug. 1.

The university has called three public forums for next week to discuss the ideas.

- TCU Opts Out of Campus Carry.

Students at Texas Christian University still won't be able to carry their guns on campus next year, the university announced Friday.

The Fort Worth private school's board of trustees voted to opt out of the state's new campus carry law, which allows students with concealed handgun licenses to carry their guns on campus. The law applies to all public universities but allows private colleges to decide whether they want to follow it.

Universities across the state have been hosting forums and gathering public input on the issue. TCU's faculty senate passed a resolution in October opposing allowing guns at their school. But some students asked administrators to opt in. Gun rights advocates held a rally on campus expressing support for the law.

“It was quite clear that no matter which side of the issue each person felt was best, all cared deeply about the safety of the community," Kathy Cavins-Tull, TCU's vice chancellor for student affairs, said in a statement announcing the decision.

So far, most private schools have expressed a preference for opting out.

The next round in the battle between Texas and the EPA

The Texas Tribune reports on the latest chapter of the never ending conflict between the government of Texas and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. More specifically, its between the business interests within the state of Texas which focus on extracting and processing natural resources and heavily influence that activities of the state government and the environmental forces that look to minimize the side effects of those processes and are represented on the national level.

It's classic federalism.

- Click here for the article: Judge Casts EPA Rule into Muddy Legal Waters.

After a setback in court Thursday, can the federal government enforce its controversial "Waters of the U.S." rule in Texas?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says yes. Texas says no.

The agency on Friday said the regulation, aimed at better defining the scope of bodies of water protected under the federal Clean Water Act, took effect in Texas and several other states, rankling Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The confusion started Thursday. Hours before the regulation was set to take effect, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota granted a request from 13 states — not including Texas — to block the rule, which would allow the federal government to regulate small streams and wetlands.

The debate over the EPA rule has to do with what the term "navigable waters" means, as well as the extent of the judges decision regarding the implementation of the rule.

For background over the question of what "navigable waters" means click on the following:

- EPA Seeks to Clarify Federal Water Law.

In 2000, when the Chevron Pipe Line Co. spilled 126,000 gallons of oil into a creek in West Texas, no water was flowing in the tributary. When the federal government sued the company under the Clean Water Act, though, a federal trial court judge ruled in the company's favor, arguing that the oil had not reached “navigable” water.

The EPA said that the clarifications the agencies are seeking do not add new bodies of water to its jurisdiction, they just explain that both wetlands and intermittent streams that often dry up in the summer are included in the act's definition.

“It is universally understood that term ("navigable water") includes many kinds of non-navigable waters,” said Jon Devine, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The agencies are seeking to protect those water bodies that have a significant affect on waters that are navigable.”

But opponents of changing the federal rules say the EPA is overstepping its bounds, and that it could damage private property rights in the process.

“This potentially could allow for the federal government to require a permit to do anything on your land,” said Steve Pringle, legislative director of the Texas Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau Federation is one of 29 groups in the Waters Advocacy Coalition that is lobbying against the EPA changes on behalf of the construction, mining, agricultural and energy interests.

Before 2001, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers believed the Clean Water Act protected almost all of the waters in the U.S. But in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act did not protect an abandoned sand and gravel pit that had evolved into permanent and seasonal ponds — and that a solid waste agency wanted to fill.

A 2006 Supreme Court case in which a plaintiff filled 22 acres of Michigan wetland with sand in preparation for the construction of a mall only added to the confusion. The plaintiff argued that since the land was 20 miles from a navigable waterway, he wasn't breaking the law. The high court did not reach a majority opinion and remanded the case to a lower court; in that case, the Supreme Court justices each wrote individual opinions of what constituted "navigable waters."

“That Supreme Court case created mass confusion. It created room for additional defenses," said Daniel Cooper, a partner at Lawyers for Clean Water, which supports the proposed changes. "Clearly this will create more clarity of what is covered by the Clean Water Act. I think this will decrease the amount of litigation.”

"Texas has sued the EPA 21 times since President Obama took office in 2009"

That's a quote pulled from the following story in the Texas Tribune on a recent decision concerning the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the rule.

Pollution - nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide specifically - from Texas tends to float upwind and affect other states. The rule allows the EPA to regulate power plants here and elsewhere that causes such pollution - which of course raises objections here.

Texas sued the EPA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the rule be reconsidered, but also ruled that the EPA did have jurisdiction to issue such rules. This allowed each side to claim a victory.

The story also links to a list of all the lawsuits filed by the state of Texas against the EPA. Its a good way ti com to grips with the conflict between the national and state governments regarding pollution.

- You can peruse them here.

Do you want to comment on the proposed changes to overtime rules?

You can. All rules changes go through a period of public comment, including this one.

- Click here to see how you can add you two cents.

What is the "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard?"

This was the rule in question in Michigan v EPA. It was passed in 2012 - here's a description of it:

The 2012 mercury and air toxics standards, which apply to about 600 power plants, established emissions limits for mercury, filterable particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases. The EPA estimates that the standards will cost the power industry $9.6 billion annually.

- Click here for a more thorough explanation.

The simple issue the court ruled on - and was divided over - was whether the benefits from the rule were compatible with the $9.6 billion cost. The majority said it didn't, the minority said it did.

The rulemaking process is discussed in both 2305 and 2306 in the sections on the executive branch - especially the bureaucracy.It's the mechanism through which laws are clarified so that they can be implemented by the appropriate agency.

For specifics on the EPA's rulemaking process click here:

- EPA: The Basics of the Regulatory Process.

For a more thorough look at the rulemaking process click here:

- A Guide to the Rulemaking Process.

For detail on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard click here.

The Supreme Court argued that these rules did not properly take into consideration the costs imposed on industry and that a lower court had to re argue the case with that in mind.

For more on the rule:

- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges To EPA’s Mercury Standards for Power Plants.
- The Dangerous Consequences of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Mercury Pollution.
- Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: 25 Years in the Making.

From the Washington Post: The FCC approves strong net neutrality rules

- Click here for the article.

The Federal Communications Commission approved strict new rules for Internet providers Thursday in a historic vote that represents the government's most aggressive attempt to make sure the Web remains a level playing field.

The rules would dramatically expand the agency's oversight of the country's high-speed broadband providers, regulating them like a public utility. They were adopted by a 3-to-2 margin with the commission's Republican members voting against them.

Under the rules, it will be illegal for companies such as Verizon or Cox Communications to slow down streaming videos, games and other online content traveling over their networks. They also will be prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" that speed up access to Web sites that pay an extra fee. And in an unprecedented move, the FCC could apply the rules to wireless carriers, such as T-Mobile and Sprint, in a nod to the rapid rise of smartphones and the mobile Internet.

What is net neutrality?

- What Is Net Neutrality And Why Should I Care? The Non-Geek’s Guide.

And what is the FCC?

- Wikipedia: FCC.
- Website: FCC.gov.
- FCC Rulemaking.

From the NYT: F.A.A. Rules Would Limit Commercial Drone Use

This gives us an early look at the rule-making process. Both 2305 and 2306 will look at this process further when we get to the executive branch on each level of government.

- Click here for the article.

In an attempt to bring order to increasingly chaotic skies, the Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday proposed long-awaited rules on the commercial use of small drones, requiring operators to be certified, fly only during daylight and keep their aircraft in sight.

The rules, though less restrictive than the current ones, appear to prohibit for now the kind of drone delivery services being explored by Amazon, Google and other companies, since the operator or assigned observers must be able to see the drone at all times without binoculars. But company officials believe the line-of-sight requirement could be relaxed in the future to accommodate delivery services.

The proposed regulations would cover only nonrecreational unmanned aircraft weighing up to 55 pounds, and would not apply to the recreational use of drones, which have become hugely popular with hobbyists and are covered by other rules. However, the F.A.A. said it was considering additional rules to cover some uses of the smallest drones, so-called microdrones, weighing less than 4.4 pounds.

Some drone evangelists believe that in the next few decades, robotic aircraft will prove as useful and transformative to government, commerce and home life as the personal computer. But the exploding number of domestic drones has been accompanied by increasing safety problems, including reports of near misses involving passenger airliners and the crash of a small drone on the White House grounds last month.

- Click here for the rulemaking page on the FAA's website.
- Wikipedia: Federal Aviation Administration.
- FAA website.

From the Texas Tribune: Perry: Anti-Prison Rape Standards "Impossible"

More conflict between the US and Texas governments.

- Click here for the article.

More than a decade after the Prison Rape Elimination Act unanimously passed Congress, federal standards for implementation of the law have been finalized. Now, Gov. Rick Perry and some prison reform advocates are at odds over what those standards mean for Texas lockups and the taxpayers who pay for them.

In a March 28 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Perry wrote that while he believed the law was well-intended, he would not certify that the 297 state prisons and local jails that are subject to PREA comply with its regulations come May 15, the certification deadline set by Department of Justice.

The new standards, he wrote, are "impossible," out of touch with the daily realities of state prisons and would require heavy financial burdens.

"Absent standards that acknowledge the operational realities in our prisons and jails, I will not sign your form and I will encourage my fellow governors to follow suit," Perry wrote.

But a spokesman for the correctional officers union said that not complying with the federal rules puts Texas at risk financially and legally.

Jason Clark, spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said the prison system has already made significant progress in meeting PREA standards.

“We are compliant with most of PREA’s standards, except for the cross-gender supervision standard,” Clark said.

That regulation, which is the primary rule to which Perry objects, would prohibit female officers from working in areas where they would see male inmates in private settings, such as the shower. About 40 percent of TDCJ correctional officers at units that house males are female, Perry wrote. PREA standards would force TDCJ to deny female officers jobs and promotion opportunities at those units.

The rules would also require a smaller ratio of correctional officers to juveniles at facilities that house offenders younger than 18. Perry said the cost of meeting that requirement would be unacceptably burdensome to small, local jails.