Presidential Executive Order 13610 (Barack Obama, 2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
• Nondelegation
• Judicial deference
• Executive control
• Procedural rights
• Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

Presidential Executive Order 13610: Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens is a presidential executive order issued by President Barack Obama (D) in 2012 that set out policies and procedures for federal agencies to conduct retrospective review of existing regulations. It was a follow up to Obama's 2011 E.O. 13563 which, among other things, required agencies to develop retrsopective review plans and submit them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.[1]

Background

In 1993, President Bill Clinton (D) issued Executive Order 12866, titled "Regulatory Planning and Review," which established principles and processes to govern federal agency rulemaking, regulatory planning, and regulatory review. Clinton's order also revoked and replaced two of President Ronald Reagan's (R) regulatory executive orders, 12291 and 12498.[2] President George W. Bush (R) amended Clinton's order twice during his presidency, in 2002 and 2007. President Barack Obama (D) revoked both of Bush's amending orders by issuing Executive Order 13497, titled "Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Regulatory Planning and Review," on January 30, 2009.[3]

E.O. 13610

The Obama issued Executive Order 13610, "Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens," on May 10, 2012. The order's introduction describes its purpose as follows: "to modernize our regulatory system and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and costs." The order lays out policies and instructions for agencies to carry out retrospective reviews of existing regulations on a regular basis. It refers to and expands upon the regulatory review processes instituted by President Clinton's E.O. 12866 of 1993 and President Obama's E.O. 13563 of 2011.[1]

Retrospective regulatory review

The term retrospective regulatory review (or simply retrospective review) refers to processes used by regulatory agencies, as well as the president, Congress, state executives, and state legislatures, to determine if existing regulations should be retained, modified, or repealed. Since the 1970s, beginning with the presidential administration of Jimmy Carter, the president and Congress have issued executive orders and enacted laws requiring federal agencies to conduct various kinds of retrospective regulatory review. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is authorized under several presidential executive orders to review existing federal regulations. Some state governments have also undertaken retrospective review efforts.[4][5][6]

Provisions

E.O. 13610 has five sections. The order applies to all federal agencies except for the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Election Commission, the District of Columbia, independent regulatory agencies, and government-owned contractor-operated facilities. The statute cited by E.O. 13610 defines an agency as "any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President)."[1]

Regulatory policy

The order begins by stating that regulations are important for society but can also be costly and burdensome. It argues that retrospective review of existing rules is an important tool for agencies to balance regulatory costs and benefits:[1]

“

Section 1. Policy. Regulations play an indispensable role in protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, but they can also impose significant burdens and costs. During challenging economic times, we should be especially careful not to impose unjustified regulatory requirements. For this reason, it is particularly important for agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.[7]

”

The order goes on to favorably cite the terms of E.O. 13563, which was issued by President Obama the previous year. E.O. 13563 instituted retrospective review requirements, which E.O. 13610 was intended to respond to and expand upon:[1]

“

Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system 'must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.' To promote this goal, that Executive Order requires agencies not merely to conduct a single exercise, but to engage in 'periodic review of existing significant regulations.' Pursuant to section 6(b) of that Executive Order, agencies are required to develop retrospective review plans to review existing significant regulations in order to 'determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.' The purpose of this requirement is to 'make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'

In response to Executive Order 13563, agencies have developed and made available for public comment retrospective review plans that identify over five hundred initiatives. A small fraction of those initiatives, already finalized or formally proposed to the public, are anticipated to eliminate billions of dollars in regulatory costs and tens of millions of hours in annual paperwork burdens. Significantly larger savings are anticipated as the plans are implemented and as action is taken on additional initiatives.[7]

”

The first section of E.O. 13610 concludes by calling for an expansion and standardization of retrospective regulatory review, while acknowledging that agencies have made various such efforts on their own in the past:[1]

“

As a matter of longstanding practice and to satisfy statutory obligations, many agencies engaged in periodic review of existing regulations prior to the issuance of Executive Order 13563. But further steps should be taken, consistent with law, agency resources, and regulatory priorities, to promote public participation in retrospective review, to modernize our regulatory system, and to institutionalize regular assessment of significant regulations.[7]

”

Public participation

The second section of the order directs agencies to regularly seek public input on their retrospective review efforts and to make retrospective analysis documents and supporting data available online to the public:[1]

“

Sec. 2. Public Participation in Retrospective Review. Members of the public, including those directly and indirectly affected by regulations, as well as State, local, and tribal governments, have important information about the actual effects of existing regulations. For this reason, and consistent with Executive Order 13563, agencies shall invite, on a regular basis (to be determined by the agency head in consultation with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)), public suggestions about regulations in need of retrospective review and about appropriate modifications to such regulations. To promote an open exchange of information, retrospective analyses of regulations, including supporting data, shall be released to the public online wherever practicable.[7]

”

Priorities

The third section of the order directs agencies to prioritize retrospective review initiatives that are expected to significantly and quantifiably reduce the monetary and paperwork burdens of regulations. The order also instructs agencies to balance this goal with the goal of "protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment":[1]

“

Sec. 3. Setting Priorities. In implementing and improving their retrospective review plans, and in considering retrospective review suggestions from the public, agencies shall give priority, consistent with law, to those initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens while protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment. To the extent practicable and permitted by law, agencies shall also give special consideration to initiatives that would reduce unjustified regulatory burdens or simplify or harmonize regulatory requirements imposed on small businesses. Consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), agencies shall give consideration to the cumulative effects of their own regulations, including cumulative burdens, and shall to the extent practicable and consistent with law give priority to reforms that would make significant progress in reducing those burdens while protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment.[7]

”

Reporting requirements

The order directs agencies to report on their retrospective review work twice per year to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and to make these reports available to the public:[1]

“

Sec. 4. Accountability. Agencies shall regularly report on the status of their retrospective review efforts to OIRA. Agency reports should describe progress, anticipated accomplishments, and proposed timelines for relevant actions, with an emphasis on the priorities described in section 3 of this order. Agencies shall submit draft reports to OIRA on September 10, 2012, and on the second Monday of January and July for each year thereafter, unless directed otherwise through subsequent guidance from OIRA. Agencies shall make final reports available to the public within a reasonable period (not to exceed three weeks from the date of submission of draft reports to OIRA).[7]

”

Disclaimer

The final section of the order has a disclaimer noting that "nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect" the statutory authority of agencies and agency leadership or the functions of the OMB director. The order further notes that it is subject to applicable law and the availability of appropriations, and that it does not create any right or benefit enforceable against the United States government or any component thereof.[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Federal Register, "Executive Order 13610: Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens," May 10, 2012
  2. ↑ Federal Register, "Executive Order 12866," October 4, 1993
  3. ↑ Competitive Enterprise Institute, "Channeling Reagan by Executive Order," July 14, 2016
  4. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist to Improve Effectiveness and Transparency of Retrospective Reviews," July 2007
  5. ↑ Administrative Conference of the United States, "Retrospective Review of Agency Rules," December 9, 2014
  6. ↑ The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 28, 2017
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
v • e
Ballotpedia
About
Editorial Content
Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Galatioto • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Roneka Matheny • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Presidential_Executive_Order_13610_(Barack_Obama,_2012)&oldid=9196480"