center for regulatory effectiveness responds to regs

[Robin Foolz]

they're from omb (federal agency: office of management and budget)???

how much sway in the regulatory process do they have? is this good news for us? it seems to me they are boldly against the current version of the regs.

direct linky to fed web site doc

will need .pdf to view. too long to post here. here's an excerpt:

"The agencies have declined to state which internet gambling transactions are unlawful and have recognized the difficulty of doing so for reasons including "the fact that the legality of a particular Internet gambling transaction might change depending on the location of the gambler at the time the transaction was initiated, and the location where the bet or wager was received."
Although the agencies are not required to list a set of restricted transactions, the proposed rule de facto requires designated payment systems and non-exempt processors to determine what is and is not a restricted transaction in each jurisdiction in which they do business. Without such a determination, which underlies all identification/blocking tasks, the entire set of policies and procedures would be useless, lack practical utility and, thus, could not be approved by OMB. The agencies have recognized the significant burden associated with determining what is and is not a restricted when they indicated that determining which internet wagers are unlawful would require formally interpreting "the various Federal and State gambling laws in order to determine whether the activities of each business that appears to conduct some type of gambling-related function are unlawful under those statutes. Therefore, each designated payment system and/or non-exempt transaction provider will need to retain competent counsel to draft a defensible legal opinion specifying, for each state/locality in which they transact business, exactly which internet wagers are unlawful and which are permitted. The legal and management costs associated with: 1) determining what is an unlawful transaction in a given locality; and 2) incorporating that information into commercial agreements, computer systems, and other policies and procedures is clearly a "burden" as defined in 44 U.S.C. §3502 with respect to "reviewing instructions," "adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements," and "transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information." The substantial burden associated with the task, which underlies all enforcement under the UIGEA, needs to be included in the ICR."