WHouse stops pending Bush regulations for review

[doobie]

WHouse stops pending Bush regulations for review

Looks like Concealed Carry in National Parks is likely to get killed...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.

"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.

The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.

Midnight regulations have been heavily used by recent former presidents, including the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George H. W. Bush, and most recently, the Republican George W. Bush.

Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks and prohibiting medical facilities from receiving federal money for discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse to assist with abortions or dispense contraceptives based on religious grounds.

Federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major regulatory changes become law, so some presidents try to publish new major regulations to ensure they go into effect before the new president's inauguration on January 20.

 

[Bob P]

No surprise there.

 

[economist]

And GWB was an idiot to do this at the end of his administration rather than at the beginning.

 

[Admin]

And GWB was an idiot to do this at the end of his administration rather than at the beginning.

+1

 

[Ricochet]

 

[buffermop]

GWB was an IDIOT in the beginning to the end!!

 

[terraformer]

And GWB was an idiot to do this at the end of his administration rather than at the beginning.

Yup, had he done it even months earlier he would have forced Obama to open up the process for review, scrutinization, etc but waiting as long as he did, he handed OB a frickn' veto card. Sometimes I wonder if this crap is intentional. Throw the supposed base a bone, but tie it to their finger so they can throw it again later. BTW: This stopping of regs is a standard thing, and was going to happen regardless, it just so happens at a time when it could adversely effect the parks carry regs.

 

[boomerang]

The national parks are losing visitors year after year.
My wife wanted to go camping in Yellowstone. Not now I won't.

 

[Amicus]

I am not buying this Reuters report. Federal administrative law provides for 60 days delay following final rulemaking and publication for major regulatory changes, and 30 days for minor ones. Concerning concealed firearms in national parks, the Department of the Interior filed its notice of final rulemaking on 12/9, and it was published 12/10. The notice states that the rule would take effect on 1/9/09 (i.e., 30 days following the publication of notice of final rulemaking).

It is apparent that Interior considers this a minor rulemaking and that the 30 day period applies. As such, the rule is now in effect and is not pending.

The entire final rule is worth reading, especially for the summary section, which is very informative about the way federal regulations are made. For example, Interior notes that it received many comments in opposition to the rule, but those comments were forms rather than individual letters (i.e., real letters count, forms less so).

Some ways to stop this rule’s application would be via an executive order, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the rule, or a court determination that the rule change is “major.”

The final rule is available at:

http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cg...SdocID=552996372195+2+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

[Pilgrim]

isn't the parks carry thing in actual use and not in the 'pending' status?

 

[Skald]

isn't the parks carry thing in actual use and not in the 'pending' status?

Went effective 1/9/09.

 

[doobie]

isn't the parks carry thing in actual use and not in the 'pending' status?

It is in use, but there is a 30/90 day period that it can still be re-reviewed within.

 

[terraformer]

It is in use, but there is a 30/90 day period that it can still be re-reviewed within.

You sure Amicus is not correct? I wonder if Reuters got it wrong here.

 

[Amicus]

Sorry, I’m still not buying it. According to the Rahm Emanuel memo, the order applies to new or pending regulations, or to those that have been published in the Federal Register but have not yet taken effect.

See the memo at: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/emanuel-regulatory-review.pdf

The regulation we are discussing has been published and has taken effect. In the case of those regulations that are affected by the Emanuel memo and are final but have not yet taken effect, there is a 30 day additional notice and comment period and a 60 day delay in taking effect (unless, or course, the comments bring up enough contradictory points).

The only other means I can think of is noted at 5 USC 705, which states:

‘When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review …’

It’s been a long time since I have played with the Administrative Procedures Act, but, at least on the face of it, you can’t postpone a date that has already passed. It is possible that somewhere out there is case law stating that the effective date can be postponed after that date has passed. Right now, I don’t know.

I guess that applying this “catch-all” would be a relatively extreme measure.

I also note that the Reuters article did not state that the memo would affect the national parks reg. Rather, the article stated that it was ‘late.’ “Late” in this case is kind of like the statement that a defendant got off on a “technicality”; it’s the language of losers who are trying to discredit the winners, and the winners were found to be protected under the law.

 

[boomerang]

The only other means I can think of is noted at 5 USC 705, which states:

‘When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review …’

I fear the administration will use all sorts of esoteric interpretations of law in order to obfuscate the courts.

 

[KMaurer]

It is in use, but there is a 30/90 day period that it can still be re-reviewed within.

No, the final rule was published 12/10. The 30 day review period expired and it took effect on January 9. The only way that it could be reversed would be through an entirely new round of rule making, including publishing a notice of a proposed rule change, a public comment period, revision and publishing of a new final rule and another 30 day review period. I sort of doubt that his Oneness would want to start of his administration with a very public pissing contest over something so minor in comparison to his broader intentions.

Ken

 

[Bob P]

I fear the administration will use all sorts of esoteric interpretations of law in order to obfuscate the courts.

+2 for using obfuscate.

 

[cekim]

I fear the administration will use all sorts of esoteric interpretations of law in order to obfuscate the courts.

Unfortunately, Bush taught dear leader that he could write anything he likes into signing orders...

I sure hope they keep tracking that BS...

 

[JRyan]

Sorry, I’m still not buying it. According to the Rahm Emanuel memo, the order applies to new or pending regulations, or to those that have been published in the Federal Register but have not yet taken effect.

See the memo at: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/emanuel-regulatory-review.pdf

The regulation we are discussing has been published and has taken effect. In the case of those regulations that are affected by the Emanuel memo and are final but have not yet taken effect, there is a 30 day additional notice and comment period and a 60 day delay in taking effect (unless, or course, the comments bring up enough contradictory points).

The only other means I can think of is noted at 5 USC 705, which states:

‘When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review …’

It’s been a long time since I have played with the Administrative Procedures Act, but, at least on the face of it, you can’t postpone a date that has already passed. It is possible that somewhere out there is case law stating that the effective date can be postponed after that date has passed. Right now, I don’t know.

I guess that applying this “catch-all” would be a relatively extreme measure.

I also note that the Reuters article did not state that the memo would affect the national parks reg. Rather, the article stated that it was ‘late.’ “Late” in this case is kind of like the statement that a defendant got off on a “technicality”; it’s the language of losers who are trying to discredit the winners, and the winners were found to be protected under the law.

Thanks.

 

[Amicus]

doobie should get credit for pointing out the additional review period. I believe he his referring to the possibility of Congressional review of major rules within 60 days of the effective date.

This is found at 5 USC 801, et seq. I haven't had a chance to go over this provision, but I can summarize it as a streamlined procedure for Congress to enact a "Joint Resolution of disapproval" for a given reg. If my cursory reading is correct, this procedure will only affect "major rules," and, it appears, that the rule in question is not a major rule.

Keep in mind that administrative agencies get their rulemaking power from Congress, and Congress can always amend that delegated power by its own lawmaking power.