New Rules: A Review Of Regulatory Reform Proposals

What does a Republican-led Congress mean for the future of environmental regulations? A legislative insider provides the scoop.

In Washington there are those who introduce and vote on legislation, and those behind the scenes who inform the legislators with objective research. Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy for the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service, is among the latter, but how her work is interpreted, relayed, or “spun” by politicians is another story. In large part, it’s the ruling party’s agenda that dictates regulatory policy. When the political pendulum inevitably swings, as it did with November’s midterm elections (favoring Republicans), regulatory reform proposals have the potential to undo, counteract, or “correct” existing policy. Copeland recently reported on a slew of new reform proposals during a presentation at the Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (WWEMA) Washington Forum in April.

According to Copeland, whose Office is nonpartisan, supporters of reform argue that it will improve rulemaking by ensuring full consideration of regulatory impacts and costs; opponents, meanwhile, argue that the proposals are meant to halt regulatory processes, making analysis so complex and burdensome on government that it’s impossible to regulate. Copeland said both views may be correct (a nonpartisan comment indeed), but indicated that the current Congressional profile gives regulatory reform a better chance now than in recent past years. Still, she tempered, proposals that pass(ed) through the House of Representatives would face tough Senate and Administration opposition.

What follows are Copeland’s descriptions of regulatory reform proposals on the docket, grouped in illustrative categories, such as they appeared in her presentation.

Bills For Review, Repeal/Sunset Of Existing Rules

• Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 708, King) to establish an independent commission to identify outdated or overly burdensome rules and nominate them for congressional review under “fast-track” procedures
• Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB Act) (H.R. 1155, Smith of MO) also would establish a commission to review rules. This bill would force agencies to scrap one economically costly rule before promulgating a new one.
• Small Business Regulatory Sunset Act (S. 846, Kirk) would require federal agencies to analyze impacts of major rules on small business and would sunset rules that impact small business after 7 years unless agencies go through rulemaking to renew them.

Legislation On Permit Streamlining

• Federal Permitting Improvement Act (S. 280, Portman) to streamline environmental permitting for major energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects through improved interagency coordination of federal permitting processes
• The Responsibility and Professionally Invigorating Development Act (RAPID Act) (H.R. 348, Marino) is similar.

Bills Concerning Judicial Review Of Consent Decrees And Settlements

• Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlement Act (H.R. 712, Collins/S. 378, Grassley) seeks to curtail use of legal settlements and consent decrees between federal agencies and outside groups. [It] would require agencies to provide public notice when they have received notices of intent to sue from advocacy groups, and would require agencies to provide industry groups, states, and other affected parties an opportunity to intervene before agencies file consent decrees or settlements with a court.

Legislation Concerned With New Rules

• Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) (S. 226, Paul/H.R. 427, Young of IN) [specifies that] major rules may not take effect unless Congress enacts a resolution of approval.
• Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act (H.R. 50, Foxx) requires agencies to analyze direct and indirect costs of unfunded mandates on state and local governments [and] the private sector. Expands unfunded mandates law to independent regulatory agencies (e.g., SEC, NLRB, FDIC, FCC). (Passed House 2/4/2015)
• Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 185, Goodlatte) would require agencies to analyze indirect costs and benefits of proposals and choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative. [It] also would limit circumstances when courts may defer to an agency’s interpretation. (Passed House 1/13/2015)
• Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527, Chabot) would require all agencies to consider impacts on small business and consider direct and indirect costs of existing and new rules. (Passed House 2/5/2015)

Regulatory Reform Bills Focused On EPA

• EPA SAB Science Reform Act (H.R. 1029, Lucas) [is] concerned with transparency of scientific advice provided to EPA; [it] would require EPA to include state, local, tribal government, and industry sector on SAB panels (Passed House 3/17/2015).
• Secret Science Reform Act (H.R. 1030, Smith/S. 543, Barrasso) would prohibit EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating rules or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, [and] would require EPA to base rules on unbiased, publicly accessible science that can be verified by independent scientists. (Passed House 3/18/2015)

What do you think about the regulatory reform proposals listed? In what ways would reform be beneficial and/or detrimental? Sound off in the comments section below.