U.S. House Committee on Small Business holds hearing on reducing business burdens

Recently, the House Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations held a hearing titled, “Regulating the Regulators – Reducing Burdens on Small Business.”

The hearing was held to examine federal agency compliance with the Regulator Flexibility Act (RFA) and highlight issues to be addressed through future congressional activity.

Witnesses included Winslow Sargeant, Ph.D, chief counsel for advocacy with the U.S. Small Business Administration in Washington, D.C.; Marc Freedman, executive director of the Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.; Carl Harris, vice president and general manager of Carl Harris Co. Inc. in Wichita, Kan.; and Rena Steinzor, professor at the University of Maryland Carey Law School in Baltimore, Md.

Like this article? Sign up for our enews blasts by clicking here.

Sargeant discussed the importance of small business stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process: “We have learned through our experience with the RFA that regulations are more effective when small firms are part of the rulemaking process. The result of enhanced agency cooperation with the Office of Advocacy and improved agency compliance with the RFA benefits small businesses, the regulatory environment and the overall economy.”

Freedman discussed the importance of agencies considering the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) when writing regulations: “The RFA and SBREFA are common-sense additions to the rulemaking process that, at their core, just ask agencies to respect the small businesses that will be subject to their regulations. The RFA requires that agencies conduct analyses on the impact regulations will have on small entities, or in the case of OSHA, the EPA, and now the CFPB, small-business review panels, unless the agency can ‘certify’ that the regulation will not have a ‘significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.’ Compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act enhances the rulemaking process – assuming that the goal is to produce regulations that will have the maximum beneficial impact with a minimal burdensome impact.”

Harris further discussed the Regulatory Flexibility Act: “Congress, in crafting the RFA, clearly intended for all covered federal agencies to carefully consider the proportional impacts of federal regulations on small businesses: ‘It is the purpose of this act to establish as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulations. To achieve this principal, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.’

“Unfortunately, all too often federal agencies view RFA compliance as either a technicality of the federal rulemaking process or, worse yet, as unnecessary. In an effort to ensure that regulations are crafted in accordance with the congressional intent of the RFA, I urge Congress to seek out ways to improve agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.”