Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Regulations Tag

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 14, 2015 10 Comments
Texas Entrepreneurs are celebrating a recent state Supreme Court decision. The decision involved Texas Occupational licenses. "Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) violated the state constitution when it ordered eyebrow threaders—who practice a traditional South Asian method of using only cotton thread to remove eyebrow hair— to stop working unless they obtained 750 hours of conventional cosmetology training and passed two licensing exams," said a release. The release from the Institute for Justice continued:
Today, Texas entrepreneurs celebrated as a landmark Texas Supreme Court decision became final following the passing of the deadline for the government to seek further review. This means countless entrepreneurs, like Ash Patel, can go back to work after having to shut down their businesses for nearly six years. The sweeping decision will have huge implications not just for all Texans, but for entrepreneurs across the U.S., and means Texas occupational licensing laws now face real scrutiny. In late June, the Texas Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) violated the state constitution when it ordered eyebrow threaders—who practice a traditional South Asian method of using only cotton thread to remove eyebrow hair— to stop working unless they obtained 750 hours of conventional cosmetology training and passed two licensing exams. Not a minute of the training or a single question on the exams was devoted to eyebrow threading.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on June 23, 2015 20 Comments
The federal government is regulating the American meal, again. This time, the target is trans-fat!
The Obama administration is ordering food companies to phase out the artery-clogging trans fats that can lead to heart disease, the country's leading cause of death. The Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday that it would require food makers to stop using trans fats — found in processed foods like pie crusts, frostings and microwave popcorn — over the next three years.
It turns out California has banned trans fats since 2008, when our "conservative" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill outlawing them. When I was at the local doughnut shop yesterday, with my husband (who requested the fat-laden extravaganza for his Father's Day Breakfast), I asked the proprietor about living with the trans fat ban. She explained that while she readily complied with the rules, at added expense passed onto the customer, some other shops continued using the banned ingredients. She noted that several were closed temporarily, until legal items arrived. These facilities were then regularly reinspected for compliance. Imagine this on a large scale. It is anticipated that the conversion will cost food manufacturers billions .

Posted by Amy Miller on May 27, 2015 11 Comments
When it comes to federal regulations, I find the "it shouldn't be this complicated!" argument to be flawed. Of course it's going to be complicated---the federal government regulates activity concerning 50 states, a military, a rambunctious federal District, and foreign relations. They've got a lot going on; hence, the rule making can't really be confined to a few bullet points. That being said, at some point, you have to turn off the spigot and get serious about just how many rules and regulations the federal government should be allowed to throw at the American people. Earlier this year the Mercatus Center, a free-market economic think tank at George Mason University, created an infographic to illustrate just how ridiculous the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has become---and why they had to create a computer program just to read all of it. Take a look: CFR-read-time-RegData

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on May 07, 2015 26 Comments
As if there weren't more important things to be concerned about... Lawmakers are considering legislation that would further regulate cosmetics including handmade soap. The Personal Care Products Safety Act was introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) last month. The bill is currently rattling around in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The stated purpose of the bill is to, "protect consumers and streamline industry compliance by strengthening the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate the ingredients in personal care products. While the personal care products industry is projected to exceed $60 billion in U.S. revenue this year, federal regulations on these products have not been updated in 75 years." Essentially, the Personal Care Products Safety Act is another venture in big government glut that would expand the FDA's jurisdiction thereby creating more bureaucracy, wasting taxpayer money, and hindering small business growth. More specifically though, the bill would impose fees, and add ridiculous reporting and labeling requirements. Sen. Feinstein boasts support from just about every big cosmetic industry player including:
  • Personal Care Products Council (a trade association representing more than 600 companies in the industry)
  • Johnson & Johnson (brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products)
  • Procter & Gamble (brands include Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana,
  • Gucci, Ivory, Cover Girl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon)
  • Revlon (brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum)
  • Estee Lauder (brands include Estée Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors)
  • Unilever (brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree)
  • L’Oreal (brands include L’Oréal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken)
But what about the independent cosmetic purveyor?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 14, 2015 27 Comments
The same monstrous federal agency that brought us food pyramids, plate graphics, and encourages America to eat vegan is after health food bar maker, KIND. Recently, KIND received a love letter from the FDA citing multiple labeling violations. "However, none of your products listed above meet the requirements for use of the nutrient content claim “healthy,”" wrote the self-appointed arbiter of healthy declarations. The FDA letter to KIND is a fantastic example of how the federal bureaucracy is a vacuous waste of money. Tax money is spent paying people to sit in offices (where they're forbidden from watching porn) while they stress over 1.5 g of saturated fat in a nut bar. Four of KIND's health food bars received FDA scrutiny. In order for KIND to properly utilize the healthy designation, their health food bars cannot contain more than 1 g of saturated fat per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC). The Fruit & Nut Almond & Apricot and Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein bars contain 3.5 g, Fruit & Nut Almond & Coconut clocks in at 5 g, and the Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants contains a whopping 2.5 g of saturated fat, said the FDA. KIND's health food bars are made largely without preservatives or other fillers and fake food stuffs found in similar products. They're also exceptionally tasty. But a regulation is a regulation.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 21, 2015 0 Comments
Since 2008, the federal government has finalized over 2500 regulations. Those regulations required over 500 million hours of paperwork hours, and ring in to the tune of almost 734 billion dollars in total cost. That's a lot of agency-based lawmaking. How is the average American supposed to navigate all that? A new tool just released by the American Action Forum is here to help! AAF's "Regulation Rodeo" is a searchable, customizable, and interactive tool that lets you locate, evaluate, and learn more about all rulemakings (that means regulations that impose a private-sector burden, intergovernmental cost, or paperwork burden) published in the Federal Register since 2008. Results are displayed in colorful "infographic" form, and contain links to the Federal Register if you want more information about a specific rule. How does it work? Glad you asked. I decided to find out how much of our money the Department of Defense has spent via rulemaking since 2008. I plug and chug, and the first thing that pops up is a basic overview telling me that, while the DoD hasn't passed that many regulations, they've spent quite a bit of my money: DOD main data

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 16, 2015 32 Comments
The California "mega-drought" has officially gained the attention of the regulatory community. Recently, a NASA administrator pushed the panic button hard... by saying the Golden State had less than a year of water in its reserves and that it needs to start water rationing now!
California will run out of water in 12 months, according to a NASA scientist. The state only has one year of supply left in its reservoirs due to persistent drought and is also running out of backup groundwater, Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, wrote. The drought means that total water storage in California, which has been in decline since 2002, has been sapped by the need to use the resource for farming, he said in the Los Angeles Times. ...Famiglietti suggested immediate water-rationing measures, which are being considered in southern California, across the state.
Color me skeptical, in a nice golden brown shade. The last time a NASA scientist chimed in on the climate, it turns out the temperatures used to tout the "hottest year ever" were chalk full of errors. Why should I trust any government scientist's interpretation about climate policy matters when there are money and regulations to be made? In fact, following the money in this instance is the most logical step to take! It turns out that our state's legislators are mulling over water rate hikes.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 10, 2015 47 Comments
One of the earliest projects I took on as a citizen activist was promoting the work of former UCLA professor, Dr. James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who challenged the voodoo science used by the California Air Resources Board to pass stiff, new air emission regulations. David French of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained what subsequently happened to this heroic whistle-blower:
The facts of the case were astounding. As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”) Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations. So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 06, 2015 13 Comments
As Snowmageddon descended upon the Imperial City, freedom-loving sledders wielding "Sled Free or Die" placards marched, sleds-in-hand to Capitol Hill. The prohibition on sledding on Capitol Hill is a long-standing regulation, and is not a recent occurrence. According to CNN:
... a regulation written -- clearly by 19th-century scrooges -- banning play on the Capitol grounds. "It shall be the duty of the Capitol police on and after April 29, 1876, to prevent any portion of the Capitol Grounds and terraces from being used as playgrounds or otherwise, so far as may be necessary to protect the public property, turf and grass from destruction or injury," the regulation reads.
Those sledding in civil disobedience were informed by Capitol Police that their down-hill antics were prohibited. Undeterred, they continued to slide down Capitol Hill anyway. Despite the warnings, police watched sledders without bothering to enforce the city's archaic regulation.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 20, 2014 10 Comments
The tech policy community has momentarily banded together to nail the Federal Communications Commission to the wall over what seems to be a big data meltdown regarding hundreds of thousands of public comments the agency received regarding its Net Neutrality deliberations. Gizmodo has a nice rundown of what we know so far:
New analysis of the data the FCC recently released about the process shows that the agency lost and/or ignored a whole bunch public comments. How many is a whole bunch? Oh, about 340,000. Fight for the Future, a pro-net neutrality group, just announced a pretty major discrepancy in the number of comments it helped submit. In total, the organization helped drive 777,364 commenters to post on the FCC's antiquated comment site. Fight for the Future CTO Jeff Lyon says that "at least 244,811 [comments] were missing from the data" recently released by the FCC. On top of that, a new Sunlight Foundation study found that 95,000 of the comments the FCC did release were duplicates. ... The Sunlight Foundation admitted that there were some discrepancies in the data. The FCC also admitted to Jeff Lyons that nearly a quarter of a million comments were indeed missing from the data it released. Lyons wondered, "As of right now, the failure point is still unclear: Did the FCC simply fail to export these comments, or did they actually fail to process them in the first place?"
While we don't yet know the answer to Lyons' question, we do know that pro-Net Neutrality groups were nervous about the pro/con comment breakdown. The Sunlight Foundation released a report accusing "[a] shadowy organization with ties to the Koch Brothers" of skewing the results with a form letter writing campaign, causing pro-NN groups and tech bloggers to cry foul. Why? Probably because conservatives absolutely crushed them when the final comment tally rolled around.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 17, 2014 12 Comments
One of the most difficult challenges to overcome when explaining the dangers of big government and hyperregulation is trying to create a connection between the product or service being regulated, and the average voter paying for it. The USDA regulates our meat, but we don't see the process; we just pick up a package at the store, and pay whatever the sticker says because, well, food is food. The people at the Mercatus Center decided to get creative with the anti-regulation message by showing the connection between the long arm of government, and how long it takes to receive those gifts you ordered from Amazon at the last minute. On paper, the explanation is pretty dry:
Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University Kenneth Button shares the story of how air cargo deregulation in the 1970s paved the way for low-cost, reliable overnight shipping, which in turn allowed for groundbreaking new e-commerce businesses like Amazon and eBay. These innovations enable everyone to get their presents on time for the holidays – almost as fast as delivery by Santa himself!
There's no soporific like a good rundown of mid-70s regulatory reform (literally, nothing compares) but throw in a a few elves and some reindeer and you get something cute, relatable, and most importantly, shareable.
Accessibility by WAH