This research examines the role of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA) involvement in federal rulemaking. More specifically, this paper presents interview data from agency rule-writers across three public land agencies, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), along with OIRA staff to better understand OIRA's role in rulemaking processes. Through semi-structured interviews, this paper provides evidence to support that negative perceptions and relationships between OIRA and public land agencies only lengthens and strains rule development. The results suggest important lessons from agency personnel and OIRA staff about how future rulemakings can be strengthened by working on regulatory relationships through new forms of uniformity and consistency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanF. & HeinzerlingL. (2004). Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press.
BallaS.J. (1998). Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 92(3), 663–673.
4.
BallaS., DeetsJ, & MaltzmanF. (2011). Outside communications and OIRA review of agency regulations. Administrative Law Review, 63, 149–177.
5.
BressmenL.S. & VandenberghM.P. (2006). Inside the administrative state: A critical look at the practice of presidential control. Michigan Law Review, 105(1), 47–99.
CobbRoger & ElderCharles. (1975). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. John Hopkins University Press.
8.
CookJ.J. & RinfretS.R (2013). The Environmental Protection Agency regulates greenhouse gas emissions: Is anyone paying attention?Review of Policy Research, 30(3), 263–280.
9.
CooperJ. & WestW.F. (1998). Presidential power and republican government: The theory and practice of OMB review of agency rules. Journal of Politics, 50(4), 864–895.
ClineK. (2008). Working relationships in the national superfund program: The state Administrators' perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 117–135.
12.
CroleyS. (2003). White House review of agency rulemaking: An empirical investigation. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(3), 821–885.
13.
DavisC.E. & DuffyR.J. (2009). King coal vs. reclamation: Federal regulation of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. Administration and Society, 41(6), 674–692.
14.
FarberD.A. & ConnellA.J. (2014). The lost world of administrative law. Texas Law Review, 92(5), 1137–1189.
15.
GoldenM.M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270.
16.
HedgeD.M., MenzelD.C., & WilliamsG.H. (1988). Regulatory attitudes and behavior: The case of surface mining regulation. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(2), 323–340.
17.
HeinzerlingL. (2014). Inside EPA: A former insider's reflections on the relationship between the Obama EPA and the Obama White House. Pace Environmental Law Review, 31(1), 325–369.
18.
KamienieckiS. (2006). Corporate America and environmental policy: How often does business get its way?Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics.
19.
KatzenS. (2007). A reality check on an empirical study: Comments on ‘inside the administrative state’. Michigan Law Review, 105(7), 1497–1510.
20.
KaufmanH. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
21.
KerwinC. & FurlongS. (2011). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
22.
KumarR. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
LewickiR., GrayB. & ElliottM. (2003). Making sense of environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24.
MoeT. (1985). The politicized presidency. In ChubbJ. & PetersonP. (Eds.), The New Direction of American PoliticsWashington, DC: Brookings.
25.
NieM. (1999). “Administrative Rulemaking and Public Lands Conflict: The Forest Service's Roadless Rule.” Natural Resources Journal44: 687–742.
26.
NieM. (2008). The governance of western public lands. Kansas City: University of Kansas Press.
27.
OlsonE.D. (1984). The quiet shift of power: Office of Management & Budget supervision of Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking under Executive Order 12,291. Virginia Journal of Natural Resources Law, 4(1), 1–80b.
28.
PautzM. & RinfretS. (2014). The lilliputians of environmental regulation: The perspective of state regulators. New York: Routledge.
29.
RinfretS.R. (2011). Frames of influence: U.S. environmental rulemaking case studies. The Review of Policy Research, 28(3), 231–246.
30.
RinfretS. & FurlongS. (2012). Defining environmental rulemaking. In KraftM. & KamienieckS. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of U.S. environmental policy (372–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
RosenbergM. (1981). Beyond the limits of the executive power: Presidential control of agency rulemaking under executive order 12,291. Michigan Law Review, 80(2), 193–247.
32.
ScheberleD. (2004). Federalism and environmental policy: Trust and the politics of implementation. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
ShapiroS. (2007). Presidents and process: A comparison of regulatory process under the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. The Journal of Law and Politics, 23(4), 393–418.
34.
SunsteinC. (2013). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and realities. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1838–1878.
35.
TomkinS. L. (1998). Inside OMB: Politics and process in the president's budget office. London: M.E. Sharpe. USFWS.
36.
WestW. (2005). Administrative rulemaking: An old and emerging literature. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 655–668.
37.
YackeeJ.W. & YackeeS.W. (2012). Testing the ossification thesis: An empirical examination of federal regulatory volume and speed, 1950–1990. George Washington Law Review, 80(5), 1414–1492.
