Regulatory Discretion
The unintended consequences of policy and data overreach
Conflicting regulations impede social policy objectives of procurement policy.
“Potential contractors often confront conflicting rules requiring rationalization. It is rare where they encounter the imposition of operational guidance that conflicts with acquisition regulations, but it does happen. Such is the case regarding FAS Policy and Procedure (PAP) 2021-05, Evaluation of FSS Program Pricing. Coalition members have provided feedback on where the PAP conflicts with underlying regulations and imposes unduly burdensome submission/evaluation requirements. We also have discussed its impact on MAS contracting officers and contractors.”
Lab tests are going to become more expensive and possibly harder to come by. Nobody was asking for this move. This appears to be a power grab at the expense of CMS, the current regulator of tests.
“FDA’s 528-page rule snatches authority over tests that are developed, manufactured and performed by labs. Doctors prescribe such tests to identify prenatal genetic abnormalities, predict hereditary disease risks, select therapies, diagnose infectious diseases, and more. They increasingly use algorithms and artificial intelligence.
“The agency claims it has long held the authority to regulate tests under the 1976 Medical Device Amendments, which augmented its purview over diagnostic devices such as blood-glucose monitors and test materials. But lab tests aren’t devices. They are analytical processes and patient services.”
This new rule may not have been the permitting reform that the Inflation Reduction Act required. It may conflict with the Fiscal Responsibility Act as well.
“The rule will require regulatory agencies to assess a project’s indirect and cumulative effects on greenhouse-gas emissions rather than merely its direct environmental impact. So agencies will have to tally the many decades of emissions that would potentially be caused by the combustion of natural gas transported by a proposed pipeline.
“They will also have to identify “reasonable alternatives” that “avoid or minimize adverse effects,” including CO2 emissions. Fossil-fuel projects can be rejected if agencies decree that renewable alternatives are better for the climate. Regulators could use the same logic to veto highway expansions because more mass transit might result in fewer emissions. Agencies could veto suburban housing projects by deciding that there would be fewer emissions if people lived in cities.
“The rule will also require regulators to consider the impact on “environmental justice” communities—i.e., racial and ethnic minorities—and consult “Indigenous Knowledge” whose “special expertise” will be given equal standing to that of agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service.
“That is, unless you’re a renewable energy developer. The rule provides “categorical exclusions” from environmental reviews for projects that agencies determine will have minimal impact on the environment. Regulators will be the judge of what is “minimal.””
A good example of policy conflict. The governing body tells us that climate change is an extinction level event. We need to change our economy radically. Transportation is a big source of emissions. But domestic electric vehicles are too expensive for widespread adoption. So, of course, we impose massive tariffs on the importation of low-cost EVs.
There is simply no good reason for such a ruling
Notwithstanding the weirdness of putting US elections on the same pedestal as the Academy Awards, what is the policy benefit of banning betting markets?
“A top Wall Street regulator has proposed outlawing election betting in the U.S. derivatives markets, with officials warning that the activity poses a threat to the sanctity of American elections.
“The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is charged with regulating the vast and complex derivatives markets, voted 3-2 on Friday to issue a new rule proposal that would ban so-called event contracts that effectively act as wagers on political elections. The plan would also prohibit those contracts related to sporting events and even awards ceremonies like the Oscars.”
The FDIC’s Campaign Against Fintech Companies
The FDIC doesn’t like the fact that it has no jurisdiction over Fintechs, so it’s leveraging its regulatory power over banks that these companies use.
If the legislative branch shared the FDIC’s concerns about Fintechs, then they should make laws (and potentially create a new agency). When a regulator stretches like this, it creates uncertainty and risk on both sides.
“Leading the anti-fintech charge is FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg, who hasn’t tried to conceal his contempt for the industry. In a recent speech, he referred to fintech firms as “shadow banks” while claiming that nonbank lenders fueled the 2008 financial crisis.”
Is Candy Healthier Than Spinach?
Chocolate company takes passive-aggressive approach to complying with disclosure law.
“A Proposition 65 warning can be required even if there is no scientific evidence that anyone has been sickened by consuming a given product—chocolate, for instance. While a Consumer Reports study in 2022 found that popular chocolate bars contained more than California’s recommended allowable doses of cadmium and lead, no research has linked eating chocolate to a higher risk of birth defects or metal toxicity.
“Dandelion Chocolate started its warning by covering its legal bases, as all California businesses must. But then, in smaller print further down, things got cheeky: “Cadmium is a naturally-occurring component in soil, and many plants take it up as they absorb nutrients, which is how it gets into our cocoa beans. According to the CDC, cadmium is commonly found in vegetables, and in relatively high concentrations in leafy greens like spinach. The law won’t allow us to say much more about how the tiny trace amounts in our product will affect your health, but if you want to reduce your exposure to cadmium generally, you might consider eating fewer leafy greens.””