Idaho governor targets regulatory costs with two executive orders (2019)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


State governments have taken a variety of actions that impact the administrative state at the state level. These actions may address aspects of the regulatory process—such as rulemaking and regulatory review—or interactions between the administrative state and other branches of state government, including judicial deference.

The following news event demonstrates a noteworthy response to administrative practices made by state governments. Click here to view a full list of noteworthy state approaches to address the administrative state.

Idaho governor targets regulatory costs with two executive orders (2019)

Idaho Governor Brad Little signed two executive orders on January 31, 2019, aimed at reducing state regulations on businesses and individuals in Idaho. He said that the orders would “help simplify Idaho state government and make it more accountable to citizens.”[1]

The first executive order, the Licensing Freedom Act of 2019 (LFA), made changes to the way Idaho implements and maintains occupational licenses.[2] The LFA established a sunset rule that requires regular gubernatorial review of every licensure requirement to determine whether those requirements still serve the public interest.[2] The LFA also created a list of sunrise factors that the governor and executive departments must consider with the legislature in order to impose new regulations on businesses, professions, or occupations.[2]

The sunrise restrictions on professional regulations require agencies to consider the following:[2]

  • Whether the unregulated business or practice of the profession or occupation will substantially harm or endanger the public health, safety or welfare and whether the potential for harm is recognizable, quantifiable and not remote
  • Whether the practice of the profession or occupation requires specialized skill or training and whether that skill or training is readily available and measurable or quantifiable so that examination or training requirements would reasonably assure initial and continuing professional or occupational ability
  • Whether the regulation will have an unreasonable effect on job creation or job retention in the state or will place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of individuals who seek to practice or who are practicing a given profession or occupation to continue to practice or to find employment
  • Whether the public is or can be effectively protected by other less restrictive means
  • Whether and how the occupation or profession is licensed in other states and the compatibility of the proposed regulation in Idaho with the reciprocity rules of other states
  • Whether the proposed regulation considers and addresses the unique needs of military personnel, spouses, and veterans who are members of the occupation or profession addressed
  • Whether the overall cost-effectiveness and economic impact of the proposed regulation, including the direct and indirect costs to consumers, will be outweighed by the benefits of regulation
  • Whether the proposed regulation is the least restrictive effective regulatory framework capable of adequately protecting the public

The second executive order, called the Red Tape Reduction Act (RTRA), required the state Division of Financial Management to submit annual reports detailing efforts to eliminate regulations and to streamline state government.[3] In addition, the RTRA changed the procedures for proposing new rules through the 2021 fiscal year.[3] First, state agencies must submit a statement identifying the impact that a new rule would have on individuals and small businesses.[3] Second, agencies must name at least two existing rules to repeal or simplify or they must give reasons why existing rules cannot be simplified or removed.[3] This requirement is similar to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to eliminate two old regulations for every new regulation they issue.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Idaho Office of the Governor, "Governor Little signs two new executive orders reducing regulatory burdens on Idahoans," January 31, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Executive Department of the State of Idaho, "Executive Order No. 2019-01, Licensing Freedom Act of 2019," accessed April 19, 2019
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Executive Department of the State of Idaho, "Executive Order No. 2019-02, Red Tape Reduction Act," accessed April 19, 2019
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Idaho_governor_targets_regulatory_costs_with_two_executive_orders_(2019)&oldid=10302041"