OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) review
🔷 OIRA Review
🔹 What is OIRA?
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is a division within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President (United States).
Established under: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
🔹 Key Functions of OIRA
Regulatory Review: Reviews significant federal regulations from executive agencies before they are published.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Ensures rules undergo rigorous economic analysis.
Centralized Oversight: Promotes regulatory consistency with presidential policies.
Information Policy Oversight: Manages government data collection to reduce paperwork burdens.
Interagency Coordination: Mediates conflicts between agencies over regulatory proposals.
🔹 Legal Basis for OIRA Review
Executive Order 12291 (1981) – Issued by President Reagan; first mandated OIRA review of major rules.
Executive Order 12866 (1993) – President Clinton revised the review process, focusing on “significant regulatory actions”.
Executive Order 13563 (2011) – President Obama added emphasis on retrospective review and public participation.
These are not statutes but are binding on executive agencies as part of executive oversight.
🔹 When Does OIRA Review Apply?
Under EO 12866, OIRA reviews rules that are:
Economically significant (impact > $100 million/year),
Inconsistent with other rules,
Novel or legally/politically sensitive.
🔹 OIRA Review and the Courts
Although OIRA does not make law, its review affects the validity and implementation of agency rules. Courts have weighed in on:
Whether OIRA review can delay or stop a rule.
What happens if agencies fail to comply with OIRA process.
How much deference courts give to OIRA-influenced rules.
Let’s explore this through case law.
🔹 Key Case Laws on OIRA Review and Executive Oversight
1. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837
Facts:
EPA issued a rule based on its interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
The issue was whether courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation.
Judgment:
Established the Chevron Deference Doctrine:
If a statute is ambiguous, courts defer to a reasonable agency interpretation.
Relation to OIRA:
While not about OIRA directly, this case provides the foundation for OIRA-reviewed rules to receive judicial deference, as long as the process was reasonable.
It empowers executive agencies, and by extension, OIRA’s role in shaping rules reviewed by these agencies.
2. Sierra Club v. Costle (1981) 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Circuit)
Facts:
EPA changed a proposed rule on power plant emissions after White House and OIRA involvement.
Environmental groups challenged this as improper political interference.
Judgment:
Court upheld the rule and said presidential involvement is legitimate, as long as final decisions are reasoned and based on administrative record.
Significance:
Validated OIRA’s role in reviewing and influencing regulatory rules.
Confirmed that executive oversight is not inherently improper unless it violates legal procedures.
3. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (2011) 412 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
SEC issued rules under the Investment Company Act.
Court found SEC failed to perform adequate cost-benefit analysis.
Judgment:
Invalidated the rule due to insufficient economic analysis.
Significance:
Strengthened the requirement for rigorous regulatory impact analysis, reinforcing OIRA's emphasis on cost-benefit review.
Courts can invalidate rules if OIRA-like economic scrutiny is lacking.
4. Michigan v. EPA (2015) 576 U.S. 743
Facts:
EPA regulated mercury emissions without considering costs at the initial stage.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that agencies must consider cost when deciding whether to regulate.
Significance:
Reinforces OIRA’s mandate under EO 12866 for cost-benefit analysis.
Agencies ignoring economic impacts are vulnerable to judicial invalidation.
5. EME Homer City Generation v. EPA (2014) 572 U.S. 489
Facts:
EPA issued rules under the Clean Air Act regulating upwind pollution.
The issue was about whether the EPA's approach was permissible.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld EPA's approach, giving deference under Chevron.
Noted that EPA did conduct interagency consultations and economic review.
Significance:
Reinforces that rules developed in line with OIRA-guided procedures (cost-benefit analysis, interagency coordination) are more likely to survive legal challenges.
6. Public Citizen v. Office of United States Trade Representative (2005) 2005 WL 3862604
Facts:
Public Citizen filed a FOIA request to access documents shared during OIRA review.
Judgment:
Court allowed exemption under deliberative process privilege, protecting OIRA communications from disclosure.
Significance:
Highlights confidentiality of OIRA review.
Reinforces that OIRA is involved in policy deliberation, not just mechanical review.
7. NRDC v. EPA (2008) 559 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
EPA delayed rulemaking under pressure from OIRA.
Environmental groups challenged the delay.
Judgment:
Court criticized excessive delay, stating that OIRA oversight cannot be a pretext for stalling mandatory regulatory actions.
Significance:
Puts a judicial limit on OIRA’s power to delay rules.
Agencies cannot use OIRA review to evade statutory deadlines.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Key Legal Issue | Impact on OIRA Review |
|---|---|---|
| Chevron v. NRDC | Deference to agency interpretations | OIRA-reviewed rules enjoy deference if reasonable |
| Sierra Club v. Costle | Political influence on rulemaking | OIRA's input upheld if final rule is reasoned |
| Chamber of Commerce v. SEC | Inadequate economic analysis | Highlighted importance of cost-benefit analysis |
| Michigan v. EPA | Ignoring cost in rulemaking | Cost must be considered; supports OIRA's focus |
| EME Homer City v. EPA | Complexity in regulatory interpretation | OIRA-style analysis strengthens legal footing |
| Public Citizen v. USTR | Access to OIRA documents | Confidentiality of OIRA deliberations upheld |
| NRDC v. EPA | Delays due to OIRA | Judicial pushback against using OIRA to stall |
🔹 Conclusion
The OIRA review process plays a vital role in shaping the regulatory landscape in the United States, ensuring that:
Rules are cost-effective, legally sound, and politically coordinated;
Agencies do not act in isolation or in a statutorily unbounded manner;
Executive priorities are reflected in federal rulemaking.
Courts have generally upheld OIRA’s role, but have also:
Imposed limits when OIRA delays regulation excessively,
Required that final decisions be based on statutory authority and evidence, not just political influence.
Thus, OIRA is an important constitutional-executive mechanism, but one that must operate within the bounds of administrative law and judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments