H.R. 527 aims to require the EPA and other federal agencies to review their rules’ indirect impacts on small entities, reconsider their existing regulations to minimize their effects, require more detailed explanations from the EPA in cases where officials decline to convene special panels to limit rules’ small business effects and elevate the role of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) advocacy office in litigation over agency rules.
The bill amends current regulatory review requirements contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The House Committee on the Judiciary’s Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held a hearing on the proposal. Coble, subcommittee chairman and bill co- sponsor, indicated after the hearing that the bill could soon be considered by the full committee, though he said the decision was up to Smith, who is committee chairman.
Opponents of the measure state that it will undermine the EPA and other agencies’ ability to protect public health. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, warned at a recent hearing on the bill that its regulatory review requirements could overburden agencies and waste money by requiring all agencies to conduct analyses on the indirect impacts of regulations.
Under the RFA, the EPA and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) are already required to certify that their proposed rules will not harm a substantial number of small businesses or else conduct small-business review panels to consider regulatory alternatives that pose less of a burden on small entities. However, the EPA has faced criticism from small-business advocates that in some cases, the EPA has avoided conducting small-business reviews even in cases where some of its rules may harm a large number of entities.Now the bill seeks to tighten the agency’s current regulatory review requirements to consider the impacts of its rules on small businesses. For example, the bill requires the EPA and other agencies to consider indirect impacts of proposed rules, and raises the bar for the EPA to justify when it chooses not to convene small-business review panels. Tom Sullivan, former head of SBA’s advocacy office in the Bush administration and a witness at the judiciary hearing, says the proposal would also require the EPA to publicize the “ripple effects” of the proposed rule on small businesses; for instance, requiring the agency to consider the effects of a rule governing utilities on the cost of electricity for small businesses.
To view full text of the proposed bill, visit ASA’s legislative website at www.TakingTheHill.com.
