Cost-benefit analysis, Europe’s E. coli outbreak, health care antitrust, environmental regulation, and more … as discussed in our top analysis posts from 2011.
As 2011 draws to a close, RegBlog reflects back on a year of major regulatory developments around the world. For our daily post today, as well as our posts for yesterday and tomorrow, we will feature the top 50 RegBlog posts of the past twelve months, based on the number of page views. Today we feature the top analysis posts from among our top overall posts, while yesterday we featured the top news posts and tomorrow we will feature the top opinion posts.
* * *
More than ten days have passed since Germany reported a significant increase in the number of patients with hemolytic uremic syndrome
(HUS), a disease generally associated with gastrointestinal infections caused by E. coli
bacteria. The contamination source has yet to be identified, but this outbreak of a rare strain of the bacterium
E.coli O104:H4 has already proven to be the deadliest
Both international travelers and legal scholars should be interested in a recent hearing before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), since the outcome may affect the cost of air travel and the rules of customary international law
An ever-increasing share of economic activity is governed by international rather than domestic rules or standards, often developed by private bodies. Frequently, such global private regulation entails no market competition among multiple rulemakers. Instead, a single organization serves as the clear institutional focal point in its area of expertise and is largely uncontested in making the rules for global markets. As a result, once such a private-sector body develops a standard, it becomes the global rule.
State and federal policymakers are considering the repeal
of regulations perceived to place an undue burden on the economy.
“Open government” is one of those bumper sticker phrases with which nearly everyone agrees. But what does open government really mean? And what difference does it actually make?
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
of an impending “regulatory tsunami” that “poses … the single biggest challenge to jobs, our global competitiveness, and the future of American enterprise.” But how many new regulations do federal agencies actually have in the works?
On January 4, 2011, Congress amended
the Clean Water Act (CWA)
in an attempt to improve water quality in American cities. The new law clarifies that federally owned property, such as post offices and government buildings, are not exempt from reasonable fees that localities charge all landowners as part of their stormwater pollution control programs. These fees help fund CWA-mandated stormwater improvements. The law is a response to the claim
, made by Lynn Gibson, the General Accountability Office’s Acting General Counsel, in September 2010, that such fees are a local tax on the federal government, violating its sovereign immunity.
As the Obama Administration seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses (see related RegBlog post
), the dollar value its regulatory agencies place on human life has garnered considerable attention.
“Obama’s Order: Equity and Regulatory Analysis” by Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania (February 8)
In his speech before the US Chamber of Commerce yesterday, President Obama reminded his audience that he has ordered federal agencies to fix or repeal any “regulations that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth.” But Obama’s order – officially known as Executive Order 13,563 – did more than order a government-wide review of existing regulations. It also contained language reiterating that federal agencies can consider the values of “equity” and “distributive impacts” when developing new regulations.
Few issues of medical science and tort liability have riled public disagreement like that of vaccine safety in the past two decades. Despite an overwhelming scientific and medical consensus that common childhood vaccines are safe and effective, and that their public health benefits far outweigh their incremental risks, many members of the public and the news media have perpetuated the notion that various dire diseases – most notably autism – are caused by vaccines.
Next Tuesday, the U.S. military ban on openly gay personnel will come to an end. Or will it? With at least one Republican presidential candidate – Michele Bachmann
to reinstate the military’s repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy on gay personnel, could a future President bring back the policy through regulations that would not require congressional approval?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Ag
(EPA) is developing new rules to regulate the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emitted from electric power generation facilities. EPA’s regulatory proposal – the Clean Air Transport Rule
(Transport Rule) – is designed to help communities that are generally downwind of major emissions sources comply with air quality standards and, in the process, provide health and environmental benefits to upwind and downwind communities alike.
Last week’s decision
by the Obama Administration to withdraw consideration of new ozone standards has rightly received much attention for its policy and political implications. Overlooked in the furor that has surrounded the decision, though, has been a notable acknowledgement by the Obama Administration that will undoubtedly have implications for administrative law.
On February 22, 2011, Judge Andrew Guilford, of the District Court for the Central District of California, denied
the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC)’s motion to enjoin a merger of rival clinical laboratory testing companies. The FTC sought
to prevent Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) from acquiring Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. (Westcliff) pending an FTC administrative hearing on the merits.
Author affiliations are provided in this list for identification purposes only. All views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the affiliated organizations.