Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two regulatory reform bills, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) and the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010), with bipartisan support.
H.R. 527 passed by a vote of 263-159, with 28 Democrats supporting. The bill would require agencies to consider any “reasonably foreseeable” indirect economic effect on small businesses from a proposed or final rule. H.R. 527 requires expanded public participation, increases transparency, and closes the loopholes agencies use to avoid current requirements. H.R. 3010 passed by a vote of 253-167, with 19 Democrats supporting. Among other provisions, the bill would require agencies to consider a rule’s indirect costs and jobs impact and would expand legal tools available to challenge agency determinations.
Federal regulations costs to the U.S. economy are said to be $1.75 trillion per year.ACA actively supported both measures, signing onto a letter of industry trade associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urging members of Congress to pass the legislation. In its Nov. 30th letter, ACA and other associations said that H.R. 3010 would “make the regulatory process more transparent, agencies more accountable, and regulations more cost-effective.”
H.R. 527 also would require all federal agencies to establish small business review panels before issuing any rule, a requirement currently imposed only on the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It would also direct the Small Business Administration to play a much larger role in deciding when agencies must analyze the economic impact a proposed regulation would have on small business. In addition, it would require agencies to periodically review the economic impact of regulations.
H.R. 3010 would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to require agencies to consider any reasonable alternatives to regulations and potential costs and benefits associated with such alternatives. The bill, introduced in September by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), also would allow judicial review of interim final rules, which would give industries more avenues to challenge rules in court. Moreover, it would revive the practice of requiring formal rulemakings to include hearings, at which agency officials could be cross-examined.
Rep. Smith said during floor debate on Dec. 2 that the bill will improve transparency in the rulemaking process by providing more opportunities for public comment and administrative hearings.
In addition, H.R. 3010 would direct the White House Office of Management and Budget to develop guidelines to ensure that agencies thoroughly analyze the estimated costs of new regulations.
Separately, on Dec. 7, the U.S. House of Representatives on a near party-line vote of 241-184 approved H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011,that would require a vote from Congress before any regulation could go into effect with an economic impact of $100 million.
