The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last week on a bill that would require federal agencies to evaluate the costs of proposed regulations before adopting them, and that would arguably make it easier for product sellers to challenge onerous regulations in court.
The hearing focused on the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 3010). Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee chairman, introduced the bill this Fall to propel needed changes in the regulatory system, updating out of date aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 statute. The Senate version of the bill (S. 1606), was introduced in September, and was authored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The Regulatory Accountability Act would be the first major revision of the APA’s core regulatory procedures.
The bill would require a more formal rule-making process, under which agency officials would have to defend their regulatory proposals to affected persons. Federal agencies also would be required to give greater weight to the impacts and costs of the proposed rules. The proposal would limit the ability of agencies to regulate in the guise of voluntary “guidance” documents. (Readers know hos such regulations can impact mass tort and product liability litigation in a real way.)
Witnesses included C. Boyden Gray, Christopher C. DeMuth of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, and Arnold Baker, owner of Baker Ready-Mix Building Materials. Gray argued that the bill would strengthen judicial review of agency actions on questions of regulatory interpretation, factual issues, and cost-benefit analysis, at least in cases where the agency’s own process fails to satisfy the Act’s heightened requirements. Judicial review of agency action requires a delicate balance—the applicable standards of review are somewhat deferential, but those standards must be firmly enforced. The proposed Act strikes that balance well. DeMuth focused on the requirement of a cost-benefit standard, and the provision that agencies must adopt the least costly approach to achieving statutory objectives unless they demonstrate that the additional benefits of more costly rules justify the additional costs. And Baker offered the example of a business struggling to stay afloat in a sea of regulations, and the need for agencies to do a much better job of understanding the full impact that their regulations will have on businesses and jobs – along with possible alternatives – before they impose the most costly new rules.
A number of law professors oppose the bill, but seem to forget that it is Congress' job to decide if and when regulatory burdens have become too excessive.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee approved last week the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (H.R. 10), which would require a vote in Congress before any regulation with an economic impact of more than $100 million could go into effect. Federal regulations cost the economy $1.7 trillion each year. Congress would take a simple up-or-down vote on such huge new government regulations before they could be enforced.