Regulatory: Consequences of Congress’s proposed regulatory reform bill
The House of Representatives will soon vote on legislation designed to introduce substantial changes into the process for adopting major regulations.
December 07, 2011 at 04:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The House of Representatives will soon vote on legislation designed to introduce substantial changes into the process for adopting major regulations. The bills under consideration would significantly affect new rules promulgated by the environmental and financial supervisory agencies. No regulatory reform bill will pass the Senate before the 2012 elections, but this exercise may foreshadow an important policy issue of 2013.
The debate over the proposed legislation has been entirely political. Proponents argue that changes are needed to facilitate job creation and control runaway administrative bureaucracies. Opponents claim that the bills will obstruct the promulgation of rules necessary to protect public health and safety. This column takes a different approach and considers the practical effects of the proposals' three main changes: That (1) all rules be subject to cost-benefit analysis; (2) rules of all agencies must be subject to Presidential review before issuance and (3) all major rules must be enacted by statute.
1. Universal Cost-Benefit Analysis. This requirement would significantly change rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, which precludes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in issuing the cornerstones of its regulatory system, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Efforts to update the NAAQS have long been controversial, as the EPA has focused on the health effects and deemphasized other practical consequences of its rules.
The independent financial supervisory agencies would also be substantially affected. These entities are not currently required to conduct formal cost-benefit analyses of new rules either by statute or by Executive Order 12,866, which imposes this obligation only on agencies subject to Presidential control. The agencies insist that they conduct extensive, informal cost-benefit analyses of their proposed rules, in consultation with the regulated entities. However, the transition to preparation of formal, public studies could be problematic. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission is required by law to perform cost-benefit analyses. In Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the court recently overturned a third agency rule for violating this requirement after a withering critique of its analysis.
2. Pre-Promulgation White House Review. For years, proponents of centralized Executive authority have argued that the independent regulatory agencies, like all other agencies, should be required to submit major rules to the White House for pre-promulgation policy review. Congress has rejected these proposals, saying that the more influence the President has over the agencies, the less influence the Legislative Branch will have.
The most important independent agencies are the financial supervisory agencies, especially the Federal Reserve Board. The Department of the Treasury and the Fed share common economic perspectives and work closely together, creating a channel through which the White House may already have substantial input on Fed policy decisions. Existing consultation processes also give the Treasury significant influence over decisions by the smaller bank regulatory agencies that operate within its gravitational field. Thus, it is difficult to assess how much practical difference there might be between the rules produced through the current policy development process and those that might emerge after formal Presidential review.
3. Enactment of Major Rules by Statute. Another proposal would require that major rules (those with $100 million or more in economic impacts) must be adopted by enactment of a statute. Under this approach, Congress would lose its ability to reach compromises at a high level of abstraction and delegate to the agencies the dirty work of implementing ambiguous provisions, reconciling conflicting interests and absorbing the resulting political criticism. Voting on dozens of controversial rules each year would force Members to take personal responsibility for difficult problems they can now avoid.
The House of Representatives will soon vote on legislation designed to introduce substantial changes into the process for adopting major regulations. The bills under consideration would significantly affect new rules promulgated by the environmental and financial supervisory agencies. No regulatory reform bill will pass the Senate before the 2012 elections, but this exercise may foreshadow an important policy issue of 2013.
The debate over the proposed legislation has been entirely political. Proponents argue that changes are needed to facilitate job creation and control runaway administrative bureaucracies. Opponents claim that the bills will obstruct the promulgation of rules necessary to protect public health and safety. This column takes a different approach and considers the practical effects of the proposals' three main changes: That (1) all rules be subject to cost-benefit analysis; (2) rules of all agencies must be subject to Presidential review before issuance and (3) all major rules must be enacted by statute.
1. Universal Cost-Benefit Analysis. This requirement would significantly change rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, which precludes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in issuing the cornerstones of its regulatory system, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Efforts to update the NAAQS have long been controversial, as the EPA has focused on the health effects and deemphasized other practical consequences of its rules.
The independent financial supervisory agencies would also be substantially affected. These entities are not currently required to conduct formal cost-benefit analyses of new rules either by statute or by Executive Order 12,866, which imposes this obligation only on agencies subject to Presidential control. The agencies insist that they conduct extensive, informal cost-benefit analyses of their proposed rules, in consultation with the regulated entities. However, the transition to preparation of formal, public studies could be problematic. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission is required by law to perform cost-benefit analyses.
2. Pre-Promulgation White House Review. For years, proponents of centralized Executive authority have argued that the independent regulatory agencies, like all other agencies, should be required to submit major rules to the White House for pre-promulgation policy review. Congress has rejected these proposals, saying that the more influence the President has over the agencies, the less influence the Legislative Branch will have.
The most important independent agencies are the financial supervisory agencies, especially the Federal Reserve Board. The Department of the Treasury and the Fed share common economic perspectives and work closely together, creating a channel through which the White House may already have substantial input on Fed policy decisions. Existing consultation processes also give the Treasury significant influence over decisions by the smaller bank regulatory agencies that operate within its gravitational field. Thus, it is difficult to assess how much practical difference there might be between the rules produced through the current policy development process and those that might emerge after formal Presidential review.
3. Enactment of Major Rules by Statute. Another proposal would require that major rules (those with $100 million or more in economic impacts) must be adopted by enactment of a statute. Under this approach, Congress would lose its ability to reach compromises at a high level of abstraction and delegate to the agencies the dirty work of implementing ambiguous provisions, reconciling conflicting interests and absorbing the resulting political criticism. Voting on dozens of controversial rules each year would force Members to take personal responsibility for difficult problems they can now avoid.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250