While it is unclear what may come from this proceeding, the danger exists that it represents the beginning of a regulatory regime for a new set of information technologies that are still in their infancy. Fearing hypothetical worst-case scenarios about the misuse of some IoT technologies, some policy activists and policymakers could seek to curb or control their development.
The FDA has failed to conduct a thorough and quantitative analysis. The FDA admits it is unable to quantify health benefits derived from this rule. Instead, the FDA has developed a qualitative assessment that describes how implementing this rule would likely reduce the level of foodborne illness. The FDA estimates the “breakeven illness percentage” for each of three closely related regulatory options that are not developed within a model of optimal food safety. The FDA thus does not conduct an in-depth benefit-cost analysis of this major revision of our nation’s food safety regulations.
There is insufficient effort to establish the current state of food safety practices and little to no connection is made between those practices and public health. The FDA has not even presented a careful economic modeling of what an optimal set of rules for food safety practices would look like. Rather, the FDA wants to impose a “shotgun” approach on all covered foods rather than one that focuses on those foods or farms that pose the greatest risks. The FDA has acknowledged that it is required by law, by the Food Safety Modernization Act, to pass these standards. However, it is also required by OMB guidelines to analyze options that are not currently legal so as to inform the President and Congress when there are more efficient ways of solving a particular social problem than Congress had envisioned. The FDA should rethink its proposed regulation since there is little to suggest that it is the most efficient or effective option to improve public health.
The proposed rules would implement sections 806(a) and (c) of Dodd-Frank, which allow the Board to authorize Reserve Banks to establish and maintain accounts for, provide certain services to, and pay interest on balances maintained by or on behalf of financial market utilities (FMUs) that are designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) as systemically important or likely to become systemically important.
In analyzing the proposed policies being developed to carry out Congress’s mandate, it is important to remember that the purpose of the mandate is to open America’s skies to commercial UAS use in order to reap the social benefits that such use will bring.
Even if NHTSA does not develop a more cost-effective alternative, Congress and the public deserve an accurate assessment of the likely benefits and costs of the proposed rule. An accurate assessment of benefits would(1) acknowledge that benefits to blind and vision-impaired individuals are just a fraction of the figure in the preliminary RIA, (2) recognize that there are no benefits to pedalcyclists at the speeds covered by the regulation, and (3) base any benefit estimates for people with normal vision on research that identifies the causes of hybrid vehicle collisions with such individuals.
NHTSA seeks to establish a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (No. 136) that would require electronic stability control (ESC) systems to be fitted as standard on truck tractors and certain passenger buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 26,000 pounds (vehicles not using air brakes are excluded from the NPRM). ESC systems work by automatically applying computer-controlled braking selectively at separate wheels and inducing lower engine torque output to reduce rollovers and mitigate severe under-steer or over-steer conditions that lead to loss of control in a vehicle.
Profits gained from overdraft protection have been used by banks to expand services and accessibility for customers both rich and poor, and limiting overdraft protection may threaten many of the benefits that it makes possible.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has requested comment on the 2012 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities (hereafter referred to as “the OMB report”). This comment has been produced by Richard A. Williams, Ph.D., of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, an education, research, and outreach organization that works with scholars, policy experts, and government officials to bridge academic theory and real-world practice.
This Public Interest Comment analyzes proposed changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations that would expand the scope of the regulations to include live-in home-care workers and other domestic services and suggests that the compliance costs of these changes cannot be justified for the proposals.
The nation's economy at mid-year is operating like a three-lane expressway with one lane closed. GDP growth is breaking 2.0% when it should be 3.0%. But worse than that, the cars moving in the two open lanes are running on borrowed fuel that will someday have to be paid back.
The Mercatus Center’s clear-headed research is shaping the conversation on government spending, fiscal austerity, and financial market regulation. Come hear what the former New Zealand cabinet minister would do in this country to promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility.
"It [an incentive program geared toward a specific company] tends to undermine competition and lead to monopolistic behavior, so that means higher prices for consumers, potentially higher profits for producers,"
Like most academic economists, Mr. Cowen focuses on the next quarter-century rather than the next quarter. But new technologies like artificial intelligence and online education, increased domestic energy production and slowing growth in the cost of health care have prompted Mr. Cowen to reappraise the country’s prospects.