In administrative law, rule-making is the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking. By bringing detailed scientific and other types of expertise to bear on policy, the rulemaking process has been the means by which some of the most far-reaching government regulations of the 20th century have been created. For example, science-based regulations are critical to modern programs for environmental protection, food safety, workplace safety. However, the growth in regulations has fueled criticism that the rulemaking process reduces the transparency and accountability of democratic government. Legislatures rely on rulemaking to add more detailed scientific, economic, or industry expertise to a policy—fleshing out the broader mandates of authorizing legislation. For example a legislature would pass a law mandating the establishment of safe drinking water standards, assign an agency to develop the list of contaminants and safe levels through rulemaking.
The rise of the rulemaking process. Many find that obscure and complex rulemaking tends to undercut the democratic ideal of a government, watched by and accountable to its citizens. Although executive agencies are charged with executing, not promulgating a regulatory scheme, the breadth and depth of regulation today renders it difficult, if not impossible, for legislatures to specify the details of modern regulatory schemes; as a result, the specification of these details are delegated to agencies for rulemaking. Common purposes of rulemaking include: Adding scientific expertise. For example, in the U. S. the Federal Food and Cosmetic Act outlaws the sale of adulterated or impure drugs. The act requires that the Department of Health and Human Services promulgate regulations establishing which laboratory tests to use to test the purity of each drug. Adding implementation detail. Legislation on automobile fuel efficiency, for example delegates the development of the actual engine tests used to calculate'city mileage' and'highway mileage'.
Adding industry expertise. The U. S. Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act require the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the appropriate emissions control technologies on an industry-by-industry basis. Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more changed as new data or technologies emerge. Finding compromise. In some cases, a divided legislature can reach an agreement on a compromise legislative standard, while each side holds out hope that the implementing regulations will be more favorable to its cause. Rulemaking processes are designed to ensure that The public is informed of proposed rules before they take effect. For example, a typical U. S. federal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C.§551, et seq. would contain these steps: Legislation. The U. S. Congress passes a law, containing an organic statute that creates a new administrative agency, that outlines general goals the agency is to pursue through its rulemaking.
Congress may prescribe such goals and rulemaking duties to a pre-existing agency. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; this optional step entails publishing the agency's initial analysis of the subject matter asking for early public input on key issues. Any data or communications regarding the upcoming rule would be made available to the public for review. A board of affected parties is comprised to do give-and-take bargaining over rulemaking subject-matter which would otherwise result in deadlocked opposition by an interested party; this is called "negotiated rulemaking", results in more custom-tailored proposed rule. Proposed Rule. In this step, the agency publishes the actual proposed regulatory language in the Federal Register. Public comment. Once a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a public comment period begins, allowing the public to submit written comments to the agency. Most agencies are required to respond to every issue raised in the comments. Depending on the complexity of the rule, comment periods may last for 30 to 180 days.
Final Rule. The proposed rule becomes the final rule with some minor modifications. In this step, the agency publishes a full response to issues raised by public comments and an updated analysis and justification for the rule, including an analysis of any new data submitted by the public. In some cases, the agency may publish a second draft proposed rule if the new draft is so different from the proposed rule that it raises new issues that have not been submitted to public comment; this again appears in the Federal Register, if no further steps are taken by the public or interested parties, it is codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Judicial review. In some cases, members of the public or regulated parties file a lawsuit alleging that the rulemaking is improper
Show Dog-Universal Music is an American independent record label specializing in country music artists. It was formed from the merger of Show Dog Nashville and Universal South Records in 2009. Show Dog Nashville was formed in 2005 by singer Toby Keith as a joint venture with former DreamWorks Records executive Scott Borchetta. Universal South was formed in 2001; the two labels merged in December 2009. Universal South Records was started in 2001 under Universal Music Group by record producers Tony Brown and Tim DuBois; the label specialized in country music artists, including Joe Nichols, Randy Houser, Phil Vassar and Marty Stuart, as well as alternative country acts Shooter Jennings and Cross Canadian Ragweed. In 2005, it partnered with the talent show Nashville Star, offering a recording contract to Season 3 winner Erika Jo. George Canyon, another Nashville Star contestant recorded for the label. Brown and DuBois stepped down from Universal South in 2006, with Mark Wright a record producer, taking their place as label president.
Show Dog Nashville was formed in 2005 by Toby Keith shortly after the dissolution of DreamWorks Records, the label to which he was signed at the time. DreamWorks Records executive Scott Borchetta was its chief executive officer, his own Big Machine Records label shared much of its staff. By March 2006, Show Dog and Big Machine split into separately-staffed labels, although Keith retained his financial stake in Big Machine. Acts who released works for Show Dog included Carter's Chord, Trailer Choir, Mica Roberts, Lindsey Haun and Mac McAnally. In December 2009, Show Dog Records and Universal South merged to form Show Dog-Universal Music. One month Trace Adkins left Capitol Records Nashville to become the first post-merger signee to the label, the label's roster was announced. Singer songwriter Josh Thompson with Sony Music Nashville, joined the roster in September 2012. By the summer of 2015, Toby Keith and his daughter Krystal Keith became the only artist's signed to the label; as of recent, Waterloo Revival & Lance Carpenter have been signed to the label.
Krystal Keith Toby Keith Waterloo Revival
Guillaume François Antoine, Marquis de l'Hôpital known as Guillaume-François-Antoine Marquis de l'Hôpital, Marquis de Sainte-Mesme, Comte d'Entremont, Seigneur d'Ouques-la-Chaise, was a French mathematician. His name is associated with l'Hôpital's rule for calculating limits involving indeterminate forms 0/0 and ∞/∞. Although the rule did not originate with l'Hôpital, it appeared in print for the first time in his treatise on the infinitesimal calculus, entitled Analyse des Infiniment Petits pour l'Intelligence des Lignes Courbes; this book was a first systematic exposition of differential calculus. Several editions and translations to other languages were published and it became a model for subsequent treatments of calculus. L'Hôpital was born into a military family, his father was Anne-Alexandre de l'Hôpital, a Lieutenant-General of the King's army, Comte de Saint-Mesme and the first squire of Gaston, Duke of Orléans. His mother was Elisabeth Gobelin, a daughter of Claude Gobelin, Intendant in the King's Army and Councilor of the State.
L'Hôpital abandoned a military career due to poor eyesight and pursued his interest in mathematics, apparent since his childhood. For a while, he was a member of Nicolas Malebranche's circle in Paris and it was there that in 1691 he met young Johann Bernoulli, visiting France and agreed to supplement his Paris talks on infinitesimal calculus with private lectures to l'Hôpital at his estate at Oucques. In 1693, l'Hôpital was elected to the French academy of sciences and served twice as its vice-president. Among his accomplishments were the determination of the arc length of the logarithmic graph, one of the solutions to the brachistochrone problem, the discovery of a turning point singularity on the involute of a plane curve near an inflection point. L'Hôpital exchanged ideas with Pierre Varignon and corresponded with Gottfried Leibniz, Christiaan Huygens, Jacob and Johann Bernoulli, his Traité analytique des sections coniques et de leur usage pour la résolution des équations dans les problêmes tant déterminés qu'indéterminés was published posthumously in Paris in 1707.
In 1696 l'Hôpital published his book Analyse des Infiniment Petits pour l'Intelligence des Lignes Courbes. This was the first textbook on infinitesimal calculus and it presented the ideas of differential calculus and their applications to differential geometry of curves in a lucid form and with numerous figures; the history leading to the book's publication became a subject of a protracted controversy. In a letter from 17 March 1694, l'Hôpital made the following proposal to Johann Bernoulli: in exchange for an annual payment of 300 Francs, Bernoulli would inform l'Hôpital of his latest mathematical discoveries, withholding them from correspondence with others, including Varignon. Bernoulli's immediate response has not been preserved, but he must have agreed soon, as the subsequent letters show. L'Hôpital may have felt justified in describing these results in his book, after acknowledging his debt to Leibniz and the Bernoulli brothers, "especially the younger one". Johann Bernoulli grew unhappy with the accolades bestowed on l'Hôpital's work and complained in private correspondence about being sidelined.
After l'Hôpital's death, he publicly revealed their agreement and claimed credit for the statements and portions of the text of Analyse, which were supplied to l'Hôpital in letters. Over a period of many years, Bernoulli made progressively stronger allegations about his role in the writing of Analyse, culminating in the publication of his old work on integral calculus in 1742: he remarked that this is a continuation of his old lectures on differential calculus, which he discarded since l'Hôpital had included them in his famous book. For a long time, these claims were not regarded as credible by many historians of mathematics, because l'Hôpital's mathematical talent was not in doubt, while Bernoulli was involved in several other priority disputes. For example, both H. G. Zeuthen and Moritz Cantor, writing at the cusp of the 20th century, dismissed Bernoulli's claims on these grounds. However, in 1921 Paul Schafheitlin discovered a manuscript of Bernoulli's lectures on differential calculus from 1691–1692 in the Basel University library.
The text showed remarkable similarities to l'Hôpital's writing, substantiating Bernoulli's account of the book's origin. L'Hôpital's pedagogical brilliance in arranging and presenting the material remains universally recognized. Regardless of the exact authorship, Analyse was remarkably successful in popularizing the ideas of differential calculus stemming from Leibniz. L'Hôpital married Marie-Charlotte de Romilley de La Chesnelaye a mathematician and a member of the nobility, inheritor of large estates in Brittany; the marriage produced three daughters. G. L'Hôpital, E. Stone, The Method of Fluxions, both direct and inverse. Truesdell The New Bernoulli Edition Isis, Vol. 49, No. 1. Pp. 54–62, discusses the strange agreement between Bernoulli and de l'Hôpital on pages 59–62. A. P. Yushkevich, His