Today’s Federal Register Redux
Potential Inefficiencies and Wasteful Spending: A Watchdog Perspective
While the provided excerpts from the Federal Register (September 17, 2024) don't explicitly focus on identifying inefficiencies and wasteful spending, they do offer insights into potential areas of concern from a government watchdog's perspective.
1. Redundant Information Collection Requirements:
The Federal Register contains multiple instances of agencies seeking OMB approval for information collection activities that appear duplicative or overly burdensome.
Example: The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) notice regarding brake system safety standards mentions a previous 60-day comment period where no public feedback was received. [1] This raises questions about whether such lengthy comment periods are necessary, especially when they yield no input and potentially delay rule finalization.
Example: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (FinCEN) proposed renewal of recordkeeping requirements related to bank checks and money orders highlights a potential for redundancy. [2] While the agency acknowledges that many financial institutions might not face a significant burden due to the nature of their transactions, the estimated average burden remains high.
Potential Inefficiency: These examples suggest that agencies might benefit from streamlining information collection processes, reducing redundancy, and focusing on targeted data gathering that minimizes burdens on both the government and the regulated entities.
2. Lack of Public Accessibility for Essential Information:
The sources reveal instances where crucial information, vital for transparency and accountability, is not readily accessible to the public.
Example: The Coast Guard's reliance on emailed working rules for Great Lakes pilotage operations raises concerns about transparency and the timely dissemination of updates. [3] Relying solely on email communication for frequently changing rules hinders public understanding of these operations, which have significant safety and environmental implications.
Potential Waste: This lack of readily available information could lead to unintended noncompliance, disputes, and delays. Developing a user-friendly, publicly accessible online platform for these rules would enhance transparency, potentially reducing costs associated with misinterpretations and enforcement actions.
3. Inconsistent Application of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
While several agencies, including the IRS and the Department of Transportation, provide detailed analyses of their rules' impact on small entities, the level of detail and the criteria used vary significantly.
Example: The FRA's analysis of the brake system safety standards focuses solely on direct costs to businesses, without considering potential indirect costs or benefits related to safety improvements. [4]
Example: In contrast, the Department of Transportation's analysis of regulations on child safety seats in motor vehicles provides a comprehensive assessment of costs, benefits, and alternatives, acknowledging the potential for both cost savings and unquantifiable safety improvements. [5]
Potential Inefficiency: This inconsistency in applying regulatory flexibility analysis could result in rules that disproportionately burden small entities or fail to fully consider the broader economic and societal impacts of regulatory decisions.
4. Inadequate Justification for Regulatory Changes:
Certain rule changes lack clear and compelling justifications, raising questions about their necessity and potential costs.
Example: The Coast Guard's modification of pilotage rates for the Great Lakes doesn't fully articulate the rationale behind specific rate adjustments. [6] While the agency provides a cost model and acknowledges potential impacts on pilotage associations, the lack of a detailed explanation for the rate changes hinders transparency and stakeholder understanding.
Potential Waste: Without a clear justification for regulatory changes, there's a risk of implementing unnecessary or ineffective measures that could lead to unintended consequences and wasted resources.
5. Delays in Updating Outdated Regulations:
The sources highlight instances where regulations haven't kept pace with technological advancements or changing circumstances, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
Example: The DEA's temporary placement of specific synthetic opioids in Schedule I, while necessary for public safety, underscores the reactive nature of drug scheduling. [21 CFR 812] The emergence of new psychoactive substances often outpaces the regulatory process, creating a lag between the appearance of harmful substances and their legal control.
Potential Inefficiency: This delay in updating regulations creates a gap in enforcement capabilities and allows harmful substances to proliferate before effective controls are in place.
Promoting Efficiency and Accountability
These observations highlight the need for continuous scrutiny of government regulations and agency actions. By promoting transparency, streamlining processes, and ensuring rigorous analysis of regulatory impacts, government watchdogs can play a crucial role in identifying and mitigating inefficiencies, ultimately fostering a more effective and accountable government.
Urgent and High-Impact Items: Insights from a Watchdog's Perspective
Based on our previous analysis of potential inefficiencies and obscure regulations, let's highlight the most urgent and high-impact items demanding attention.
1. Public Safety Risks from Synthetic Opioids:
The DEA's notice regarding the temporary placement of N-pyrrolidino metonitazene and N-pyrrolidino protonitazene in Schedule I of the CSA stands out as a matter of utmost urgency and high impact. The DEA cites these substances' "imminent hazards to public safety," driven by their potency and increasing presence in fatal overdose cases. [1-3]
High Impact: The DEA's findings underscore the urgency of addressing the opioid epidemic, particularly concerning potent synthetic opioids entering the illicit drug market. The temporary scheduling aims to curb access and mitigate the risk of further overdoses. [4]
Potential Action: This issue necessitates immediate action to raise public awareness about the dangers of these substances. Enhanced law enforcement efforts targeting their production and distribution are also critical. Additionally, expanding access to addiction treatment and overdose prevention measures, such as naloxone distribution, is crucial.
2. Potential Conflict Between OFAC's Tailored Actions and Due Process:
Our previous discussion highlighted the OFAC's ability to implement "tailored actions" against specific property, potentially without direct notification to affected individuals. [5] This raises concerns about due process and transparency, especially if individuals unknowingly possess assets subject to these actions.
High Impact: While the SDN List is well-known, the lack of consistent public notice for targeted blocking orders could lead to unintentional violations and financial hardship for individuals unaware of the restrictions.
Potential Action: The OFAC should consider mechanisms for enhancing transparency and notification procedures related to targeted blocking orders. This could involve exploring ways to directly inform potentially affected individuals while balancing national security concerns.
3. Coast Guard's Reliance on Inaccessible Working Rules:
The Coast Guard's Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization rule reveals a concerning reliance on frequently updated working rules accessible only via email. This lack of readily available, up-to-date information hinders transparency and public understanding of pilotage operations.
High Impact: This opacity could have safety and environmental implications if stakeholders cannot readily access the most current rules governing pilotage in the Great Lakes.
Potential Action: The Coast Guard should prioritize developing a publicly accessible online platform for these working rules, ensuring they are regularly updated and presented in a clear, user-friendly format.
Prioritizing Action for a More Effective Government
These urgent and high-impact items highlight areas where government actions have significant and immediate consequences for public safety, individual rights, and regulatory transparency. Addressing these issues proactively will help ensure a more effective, accountable, and responsive government.
Obscure Regulations Affecting Everyday Americans
While the previous response focused on inefficiencies and burdens from a government watchdog's perspective, this response will provide examples of regulations that the average American might find obscure, drawing specifically from the provided Federal Register excerpts.
1. Blocking of Specific Property by the OFAC:
The sources reveal an obscure aspect of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s authority that could potentially impact average Americans. While the SDN List, which blocks all property of designated individuals, is widely known, the OFAC also possesses the authority to implement "tailored actions" against "specific property or interests in property." [1, 2] These actions, which might involve blocking specific assets or imposing less comprehensive prohibitions, are not always subject to public notice in the Federal Register. [2]
Obscurity for Average Americans: Imagine inheriting a seemingly ordinary piece of property, only to discover that it falls under a targeted OFAC blocking order issued without public notice. This situation highlights the potential for obscure regulations to impact individuals who might have no connection to sanctioned activities.
2. Notification Procedures for Blocked Property:
Adding to the complexity, the notification procedures for these tailored blocking orders can be indirect. Instead of directly informing affected individuals, the OFAC might issue an order to a financial institution or transaction intermediary, requiring them to relay the information. [2, 3] This indirect notification method could lead to delays and confusion, particularly if the intermediary's records are outdated or inaccurate.
Obscurity for Average Americans: This scenario raises concerns about transparency and due process. An average person might have their assets frozen without direct notification from a government agency, learning about the situation only through their bank, potentially causing significant financial hardship and stress.
3. Complexities of Air Bag On-Off Switches:
The sources highlight the intricate regulations surrounding air bag on-off switches. While the average American might be aware of their existence, the specifics of obtaining and installing these switches are far from common knowledge. The Federal Register includes a detailed "Request Form for Frontal Air Bag On-Off Switch," [4] showcasing the bureaucratic process involved.
Obscurity for Average Americans: This example illustrates how seemingly straightforward safety features can be governed by surprisingly complex regulations. An individual seeking to deactivate their airbag due to a medical condition, for example, might be caught off guard by the paperwork and approvals required.
4. Obscure Information Requirements for Child Safety Seats:
While ensuring child safety in vehicles is undoubtedly crucial, the Federal Register reveals an exceptionally specific regulation requiring airlines to publish the maximum dimensions of permissible child safety seats on their websites. [5] This hyper-specific requirement, amidst broader regulations on child restraint systems, could easily be overlooked by both airlines and passengers.
Obscurity for Average Americans: This regulation exemplifies how even well-intentioned rules, when overly specific or buried within broader frameworks, can become obscure and potentially ineffective. Parents traveling with young children might assume airlines adhere to general safety standards, unaware of this particular information requirement.
These examples, drawn from the provided sources, demonstrate how seemingly obscure regulations, often dealing with specialized areas like international sanctions or technical safety standards, can have real-world implications for average Americans. A lack of clarity, complex procedures, and indirect notification methods contribute to this obscurity, highlighting the need for increased transparency and user-friendliness in government regulations.
Onerous Regulations and Inefficiencies in the Federal Government: A Watchdog's Perspective
The provided Federal Register documents reveal several instances where the government can improve its efficiency, reduce waste, and minimize regulatory burdens.
1. Redundant Information Collection and Reporting:
The Coast Guard's final rule on Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization highlights the redundancy of monthly availability reports for Pilots and Apprentice Pilots. These reports, often uninformative due to Pilots consistently being listed as available, create unnecessary burdens. The Coast Guard acknowledges this inefficiency, noting that the reports "do not communicate meaningful information" and that "Pilots are listed as always available if they could be called in." [1] Removing this requirement saves time and effort for both the Coast Guard and maritime personnel.
The Federal Register acknowledges the need to streamline information collection processes. The Department of Agriculture, for example, explicitly requests public comment on "ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information" and encourages the use of "automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques" to improve efficiency. [2]
2. Onerous Recordkeeping Requirements:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to conduct and maintain records of proof tests for alloy steel chain slings and wire rope slings. [3] While workplace safety is paramount, this regulation seems excessively burdensome, requiring documentation for every new, repaired, or reconditioned chain sling. The watchdog perspective would question the necessity of such extensive recordkeeping and explore whether alternative, less onerous methods, such as periodic inspections, could ensure safety without placing undue burdens on employers.
3. Lack of Clarity and Accessibility in Regulations:
The Coast Guard's practice of referencing frequently updated working rules for Great Lakes pilotage within the Federal Register presents challenges. [4] Given the frequent updates, the Coast Guard acknowledges the impracticality of issuing regulations for every change. Providing only email access to these rules creates an unnecessary barrier for the public seeking transparency and understanding of these rules. A dedicated online platform for these rules, updated in real-time or with clear version control, would enhance transparency and public accessibility.
The Federal Register acknowledges the importance of clear and concise language in its rules. The Fish and Wildlife Service, for instance, emphasizes its commitment to plain language, urging the public to identify any instances where their regulations fall short of clarity and readability standards. [5] This commitment should extend beyond language to the structure and accessibility of the information, ensuring regulations are easily understood by the public.
4. Overly Complex Regulations with Minimal Benefits:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates that airlines post the maximum dimensions of permissible child safety seats on their websites. [6] While well-intentioned, this regulation might be unnecessarily specific and burdensome. Given the standardized testing and certification processes for child safety seats, providing general guidance and directing passengers to consult their car seat manufacturer's instructions for compatibility might be a more efficient approach.
5. Lengthy Comment Periods and Bureaucratic Processes:
The Federal Register's publication cycle, with multiple rounds of public comment periods (30-day, 60-day) for proposed rules and information collection requests, [7, 8] adds significant time to the regulatory process. While public input is crucial, streamlining these comment periods, potentially through a unified online platform, could expedite rulemaking without compromising stakeholder engagement.
6. Lack of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Consideration for Small Entities:
Many notices in the Federal Register lack comprehensive cost-benefit analyses, particularly concerning the impact on small entities. For example, while the Coast Guard acknowledges that its Great Lakes Pilotage Modernization rule might impact small pilot associations, it provides limited quantitative analysis on the economic effects. [9] A more rigorous assessment of costs and benefits, considering the unique challenges faced by small businesses and organizations, is essential for responsible regulation.
The Federal Register sometimes recognizes the potential burden on small entities. For instance, the IRS acknowledges concerns about the time required for small businesses to comply with reporting regulations related to Income Tax Regulations. [10] However, merely acknowledging the burden without actively seeking alternative solutions or providing specific support mechanisms for these entities does little to mitigate the negative impacts.
These examples demonstrate a need for increased vigilance in identifying and addressing regulatory burdens and inefficiencies within the federal government. A proactive approach, focused on streamlining processes, reducing redundancy, and prioritizing clear communication, will save taxpayer dollars and foster a more efficient and accountable government.
