Federal Regulatory Reform: An Overview

Order Code IB95035

CRS Issue Brief for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Federal Regulatory Reform:

An Overview

Updated May 22, 2001

Rogelio Garcia

Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Current Issues

Cost-benefit and Cost-effectiveness Analyses

Risk Assessment Analysis

Regulatory Budget

Congressional Review of Regulations

Judicial Review of Rulemaking

Moratorium on Regulations

Paperwork Reduction and Information Resources Management

Private Property “Takings”

Sunset of Regulations

Unfunded Mandates

Efforts to Reform Regulatory Process and Procedures

Executive Efforts to Reform the Process

Congressional Efforts to Reform the Process

Statutes Enacted Recently to Reform the Process

Current Regulatory Policy and Procedure

LEGISLATION

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Reports

IB95035

05-22-01

Federal Regulatory Reform: An Overview

SUMMARY

Reforming the federal process for developing and issuing regulations has been an

ongoing project of Congress and the President

for the past three decades. The significant

increase during that period in the number and

scope of federal regulations and regulatory

programs dealing with health, safety, and the

environment has stimulated the reform effort.

These “social” regulations and regulatory

programs, while providing substantial benefits,

also impose significant costs.

Achieving a proper balance between

costs, both in terms of dollars and of government intrusiveness, and benefits is at the heart

of the debate over regulatory reform. Part of

the problem, however, is the lack of consensus over the actual costs and benefits of regulations, and how best to attain such data. The

difficulty is compounded by the fact that costbenefit analysis–the best tool for assessing

available data–relies on subjective assumptions, incomplete data, and other uncertainties.

The most significant step in the effort to

control regulatory costs occurred in 1981,

when President Reagan issued Executive

Order 12291. For the first time, federal agencies were required to prepare a cost-benefit

analysis when developing regulations, and to

submit the regulations to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

President Clinton revoked the order in 1993,

and in its place issued Executive Order 12866,

which incorporated, in slightly modified form,

the cost-benefit analysis and centralized review

and clearance provisions instituted by E.O.

12291.

Over the years, numerous comprehensive

regulatory reform bills have been introduced in

Congress. The bills have contained provisions

Congressional Research Service

requiring use of cost-benefit analysis and

centralized review and clearance of regulations. Bill proponents have argued that such

reform would assure that regulations would be

issued only when needed and that they would

be cost-effective. Opponents have resisted the

proposed changes because of their concern

that existing social regulations would be weakened. They also have maintained that the new

provisions would waste agency resources and

make it more difficult to issue needed regulations.

While Congress has not passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, it has passed

several other important measures, including

the Paperwork Reduction Act (1980), Regulatory Flexibility Act (1980), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995), Congressional

Review Act, which is part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(1996), and Truth in Regulating Act (2000).

During the same period, Congress passed

legislation deregulating various sectors of the

economy, abolishing “economic” regulations

affecting telecommunications, transportation,

and other industries.

Comprehensive procedural regulatory

reform bills likely will continue to be introduced and debated in Congress. Contending

factions remain split, however, over the degree

of risk a society should reasonably tolerate

regarding health, safety, and environmental

matters. They are also divided over how best

to determine and evaluate such risk. Given the

deep philosophical differences in Congress

over the issue, the fate of comprehensive

regulatory reform remains unclear.

˜ The Library of Congress

IB95035

05-22-01

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The regulatory reform area has been relatively quiet since March 20, when President

Bush signed into law (P.L. 107-5, 115 Stat. 7) S.J.Res. 6, a joint resolution of disapproval

to overturn ergonomics standards recently issued by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, a regulation issued

by a federal agency may be overturned if, within 60 legislative days, Congress passes and

the President signs a joint resolution of disapproval, or, if the President vetoes the joint

resolution and Congress overrides the veto. Industry groups supported the resolution,

expressing concern over the likely cost and reach of the ergonomics regulations. Labor

leaders opposed the resolution, arguing that the regulations were needed to protect the

health and safety of workers. This is the first time that CRA has been used to disapprove a

regulation.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Federal agencies are authorized to issue regulations by their enabling statutes, statutes

establishing new programs, and statutes amending and extending the duties and

responsibilities of those agencies. Most regulations are issued informally, under the

notice-and-comment procedure established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Less

commonly, some agencies must add such elements of adjudicatory proceedings as

cross-examination and rebuttal witnesses to the notice-and-comment requirements when

promulgating regulations. These agencies include the Federal Trade Commission, the

Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. Very rarely, some agencies must conduct their rulemaking exercises in a

formal adjudicatory proceeding.

Informal notice-and-comment rulemaking requires that an agency publish a notice of

proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register; afford all interested persons an opportunity to

participate in the proceeding through the submission of written comments or, at the discretion

of the agency, by oral presentations; and, when consideration of the relevant matter presented

is completed, incorporate in the final rule a detailed, comprehensive statement of its basis and

purpose. A final rule must be published in the Federal Register “not less than 30 days before

its effective date.” Interested persons have the right to petition for the issuance, amendment,

or repeal of a rule. (See 5 U.S.C. 553). The APA does not specify a minimum period for

public comment. However, Executive Order 12866 requires a period of no less than 60 days.

An agency may extend or reopen the period for public comment at any time. Agencies are

also free to grant additional procedural rights to interested persons. Much of the bare bones

rulemaking requirements in the APA have been fleshed out in detail by federal court rulings

that have sought to make the rulemaking process more accessible to the interested public and

to assure fair and meaningful public input.

Over one hundred federal agencies, including units within those agencies, issue

regulations. Depending on their relationship to the President, the agencies may be divided

into two categories, those subject to the President’s direction and control (executive

departments and independent agencies), and those relatively independent of such direction

and control (independent regulatory agencies). The independent regulatory agencies,

CRS-1

IB95035

05-22-01

including, among others, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Federal Reserve System, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities

and Exchange Commission, are listed under 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

Approximately 90% of all regulations are issued by agencies subject to Executive Order

12866, agencies over which the President exercises considerable oversight and supervision.

These agencies are also the ones issuing the more costly social regulations. They include the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and

the Mine Safety and Health Administration (both in the Department of Labor), the Food and

Drug Administration (Department of Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy,

Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Transportation

(especially the National Highway Safety Administration).

Regulatory reform has emerged as a major issue because of the significant increase over

the last 30 years in the number and scope of federal regulatory programs and regulations

dealing with health, safety, and the environment. These “social” regulatory programs and

regulations, while providing substantial benefits, also impose significant costs. Proponents

of comprehensive reform contend that many federal regulations are too costly and intrusive.

They argue that the public and private resources needed to address problems in health, safety,

and environmental areas are limited; that those resources must be allocated more efficiently

to address the greatest needs of society in the most cost-effective manner, so that the costs

of regulations do not exceed the benefits. Finally, they contend that the existing system tends

to be overly risk conscious, and question what they perceive as the lack of stringent analytical

guidelines in the methodology used to assess risk hazards as well as costs and benefits when

developing regulations. These perceived shortcomings, they argue, result in unnecessary,

costly, and intrusive rules that impede economic growth and development.

Opponents of comprehensive change believe that some of the reform efforts focus too

much on costs and not enough on benefits. They argue that such efforts would hinder the

ability of regulatory agencies to safeguard the public’s health and safety, and to protect the

environment. Given the uncertainty regarding some of the risks involved, they contend it is

necessary to retain a relatively effective process that has helped to protect public health and

the environment, avoiding the unforseen consequences of sweeping regulatory change. They

assert that the methodology that agencies currently use is adequate to evaluate costs and

benefits and that the proposed reforms would prevent or unnecessarily delay needed

regulations and impose additional costs on the agencies and the public.

Several factors make it difficult to resolve existing differences regarding the need for

regulatory reform. First, the contending parties often disagree about the need for a particular

regulation. Second, the data necessary for effective use of risk assessment, cost-benefit, and

cost-effectiveness analyses — tools required for sound rulemaking — often are ambivalent

and incomplete. Finally, the above tools depend largely on assumptions and other subjective

factors, thereby exposing them to bias and manipulation. This issue brief describes specific

regulatory reform issues under consideration, provides an overview of current regulatory

processes, describes earlier efforts to reform the process, and lists major legislation designed

to reform the process.

CRS-2

IB95035

05-22-01

Current Issues

Efforts to modify the regulatory process have generally focused on the following ten

areas: (1) use of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis when developing

regulations, especially regulations likely to impose costs of $100 million or more a year; (2)

use of risk assessment analysis to determine the probability of certain hazards occurring and

their adverse effects; (3) use of a regulatory budget to provide an overview of regulatory

costs and set a cap on those costs; (4) subjecting new regulations to review and possible

disapproval by Congress; (5) widening the scope of judicial review of regulatory actions; (6)

imposing a moratorium on new regulations while agencies review their existing regulations

to determine if they should be revised or abolished; (7) reducing and streamlining the

paperwork required by regulations; (8) establishing a fair procedure for compensation of

property owners when all or some of their property is “taken” by a regulatory action; (9)

establishing a sunset mechanism whereby regulations or regulatory programs are terminated

unless Congress or the agency determines otherwise; and (10) restricting mandates imposed

on state and local governments unless federal funds are provided to offset the costs of those

mandates. Each of the areas is briefly discussed below.

Cost-benefit and Cost-effectiveness Analyses

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 602 et. al.) contains a provision

requiring agencies, except for independent regulatory boards and commissions, to prepare a

cost-benefit analysis when developing a major regulation. Cost-benefit analysis involves a

systematic identification of all costs and benefits associated with a project, regulation, or

policy decision, including a full analysis of how those costs and benefits are distributed across

different groups in society. A full analysis recognizes that the quantitative assessments of

benefits and costs are necessarily uncertain and heavily dependent on numerous assumptions,

thus requiring qualitative analysis. Particularly difficult to quantify are long-term or uncertain

effects where suspected but subtle interactive effects are not well understood or directly

measurable. A regulatory requirement is judged to pass the test if the sum of future benefits

outweighs the sum of present and future costs in present value terms. The analysis is

extremely controversial when it seeks to rationalize inherent value trade-offs. Most observers

believe that used carefully and with adequate data, cost-benefit analysis can be an effective

tool for assessing regulatory costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis seeks to determine how a

given goal can be achieved at the least cost. In contrast to cost-benefit analysis, the concern

is not with weighing the merits of the goal, but with analyzing the costs of alternatives to

reach that goal. Cost-effectiveness analysis is commonly seen as a better tool than

cost-benefit analysis for uncovering those cases where large incremental costs result in minor

gains. A disadvantage, however, is that misjudgments in determining the goal or the budget

may go undetected.

Risk Assessment Analysis

Risk analysis is the systematic evaluation of the probability of certain hazards occurring

and their adverse effects. There are many different methods of analyzing risks, some

quantitative and some qualitative. The quality of the analysis depends on the adequacy of the

underlying data and the validity of the methods. As with cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit

analyses, risk analysis, carefully used and supported by adequate data, is a valuable

CRS-3

IB95035

05-22-01

management tool in directing regulatory programs. Advocates state that risk analysis may be

used as an objective, scientific basis for planning, identifying management strategies to

provide “a bigger bang for the buck,” or promoting risk comparisons to set priorities for

threats and target expenditures to achieve greater risk reduction. Controversy focuses on

how risk analysis should be used and the influence it should exert on health, safety, and

environmental decisions. Critics argue that risk analysis is not pure science and not entirely

objective, in part because of inadequate data regarding most chemicals, health effects, and

ecological effects. They are concerned that risk analysis may oversimplify problems and is

easily manipulated. Risk analyses often focus on relatively small risks to the population as a

whole rather than larger risks to smaller groups. Cost-benefit analysis for environmental and

health regulations may use quantitative estimates of risk to assess benefits (i.e., risk avoided),

but quantitative analyses, critics claim, undervalue such benefits, especially when they are in

the distant future and exaggerate costs. They further contend that comparative risk analysis

is unscientific, and that priorities should not be based on risk alone.

Regulatory Budget

A regulatory budget is designed to improve regulatory accountability and control. Its

purpose is to force agencies to determine their regulatory priorities by 1) imposing an

analytical framework to provide an overview of the overall costs and benefits of regulations;

and 2) using such a budget to limit the total volume of regulatory programs, expenditures, and

compliance costs by setting a cap on the compliance costs each agency could impose on the

regulated sectors, both private and public. The regulatory budget concept has significant

congressional support. There is disagreement, however, as to its appropriate scope, content,

or objective. Implementing a regulatory budget presents many conceptual and empirical

problems. These include the scope of regulation to be covered (almost all federal programs

involve some degree of regulation, the amount depending to some extent upon one’s

definition of regulation); cost estimates (direct and indirect, including the impacts on firms,

industries, and consumers, beyond compliance costs); benefit estimates (generally regarded

as more difficult to achieve than estimating costs); and overlap with state and local regulation.

Congressional Review of Regulations

The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808) requires agencies to send

their final regulations to Congress for review 60 legislative days before they take effect. A

regulation may be rejected within the review period if Congress passes a joint resolution of

disapproval and the President signs it, or, if he vetoes the resolution Congress overrides the

veto. The act was used for the first time this year to overturn an ergonomics rule issued by

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Critics of congressional review argue

that it encroaches on agency independence, delays unnecessarily the issuance of regulations,

and requires an expertise that Congress does not have. Proponents respond, however, that

it enables Congress to make the final decision on the need for specific regulations and makes

agencies more sensitive to congressional intent.

Judicial Review of Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701-710) subjects agency actions to judicial

review except where a statute precludes such review or “where agency action is committed

to agency discretion by law.” Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency action

CRS-4

IB95035

05-22-01

“within the meaning of the relevant statute” may challenge that action. Statutes containing

judicial review provisions applicable to rulemaking generally call for direct, pre-enforcement

review in the courts of appeals and usually specify requirements as to venue, timing of review,

and scope of review. Arguments over judicial review focus on two concerns: first, that lack

of such review may make agencies unaccountable; and second that broadening such review

may encourage frivolous challenges and perhaps undermine the rulemaking process because

of inadvertent errors, inability to obtain hard data, and subjective evaluations of data by

judges.

Moratorium on Regulations

Since 1981, there have been three moratoriums on regulations. Two of the moratoriums

were issued by incoming Presidents (1981 and 2001) who wanted to review and possibly

block regulations issued at the end of the outgoing administrations. All three moratoriums

exempted regulations issued by independent regulatory boards and commissions, as well as

regulations issued in response to emergency situations or statutory or judicial deadlines.

Independent regulatory boards and commissions were exempted from the moratoriums, but

were requested to participate in the review on a voluntary basis. Critics claim that

moratoriums disrupt the regulatory process, delay needed regulations, and are ineffective.

Supporters, on the other hand, assert that moratoriums help to block unneeded regulations

and enable agencies to revise regulations that need to be revised and eliminate those that are

no longer needed.

Paperwork Reduction and Information Resources Management

The growth in regulations has imposed significant paperwork burdens on individuals,

businesses and organizations — both large and small — and state and local governments, and

has resulted in the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). All agree

on the need to reduce the burden, which consumes manhours and imposes costs on those

affected. Proponents of paperwork reduction stress the need to streamline and simplify the

forms and reports that must be completed by those being regulated, and to consolidate those

forms and reports to avoid unnecessary duplication when several agencies may be requiring

similar information. Other observers, however, argue that without adequate information from

regulated entities or program beneficiaries agencies may not be able to effectively carry out

their mandates. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB is the focus of the

paperwork reduction effort because of its control over the information collection activities

of the executive agencies.

Private Property “Takings”

Much of the property rights debate focuses on two statutes: the Endangered Species

Act and the wetlands protection program under the Clean Water Act. Property rights

advocates adopt either of two principal approaches. One calls on federal agencies to establish

a procedure for assessing if their proposed actions are likely to result in takings under the

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. President Reagan adopted this approach in 1988 when

he issued Executive Order 12630. The other approach calls for a statutory threshold to

stipulate when a federal agency must compensate a property owner as a result of agency

action causing a loss in property value. Typically, the statutory approach is far more generous

CRS-5

IB95035

05-22-01

to the property owner than the Fifth Amendment threshold, which in most cases requires a

major diminution in property value before compensation is owed.

Sunset of Regulations

Sunset is a mechanism designed to force systematic review of existing regulations to

determine if they are needed. The concept requires the periodic termination of regulations

unless the agency decides that they are necessary. One variant of sunset provides for agency

review to determine if a regulation should be terminated. Another requires automatic

termination unless the agency decides otherwise. Sunset proponents believe that without an

automatic review mechanism, regulations will continue long after they are needed. Critics

agree that regulations should be reviewed periodically but contend that automatic termination

is not feasible because of the enormous workload it would place on the agencies.

Unfunded Mandates

Unfunded mandates are responsibilities or duties imposed by the federal government on

state and local governments without providing funding for the costs incurred. The issue

touches upon the proper role of federalism–the responsibility of the federal government to

establish priorities and national standards and the responsibility of local governments to

determine their own priorities and standards. Advocates contend that mandates often are

designed to address state and local problems found nationwide. State and local government

officials, on the other hand, have expressed alarm at the increasing cost of complying with the

mandates. The Unfunded Mandates Act (P.L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) seeks to address some of

the issues raised by local officials.

Efforts to Reform Regulatory Process and Procedures

Since the early 1970s, Congress and the President have struggled to lessen the

intrusiveness and control the cost of regulations. Much of the effort has centered on changing

rulemaking procedures to assure that agencies issue regulations only when needed, and that

regulations produce a net benefit and impose the least net cost to society. The struggle has

been contentious because of the deep differences over the procedural changes proposed.

Executive Efforts to Reform the Process

Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter directed agencies to consider costs and various

regulatory alternatives to reduce those costs when developing regulations. But it was

President Reagan’s Executive Order 12291 that dramatically changed the procedure under

which agencies develop and issue regulations. E.O. 12291 directed agencies to employ

cost-benefit analysis when developing regulations and established centralized review of

rulemaking, two features that are now basic elements in the rulemaking process. It also

directed agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare cost-benefit analyses when

developing major regulations and to issue only regulations whose benefits outweigh their

costs. To assure compliance, agencies were required to submit their proposed and final

regulations to OMB for review and clearance.

CRS-6

IB95035

05-22-01

E.O. 12291 also directed agencies to continue publishing their semiannual agendas of

proposed regulations, which had been started in the Carter Administration. Regulations

responding to emergency situations and regulations with statutory or judicial deadlines were

exempted from the review and clearance procedures, although they had to be submitted to

OMB after they were issued

Upon assuming office, President Reagan declared a 60 day moratorium on a group of

so-called “midnight” regulations, not yet in effect, issued at the end of the Carter

Administration. Agencies were directed to prepare cost-benefit analyses for major regulations

in that group and to submit them to OMB for review and clearance.

In 1985, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12498 in an effort to improve the

coordination of regulatory activities and the management of the regulatory process. Agencies

were directed to prepare a yearly agenda containing all contemplated or planned regulatory

actions for the coming year. Except for emergency situations, agencies were prohibited from

taking any regulatory actions that had not been included in the agenda, unless those actions

were approved by OMB.

In 1989, concern about the continuing increase in the cost of regulations led President

Bush to establish the President’s Council on Competitiveness to oversee regulatory issues.

Chaired by Vice President Quayle, the Council focused on reducing the cost of new and

existing regulations. In January 1992, President Bush imposed a 90-day moratorium on

regulations and instructed the agencies to identify existing regulations and programs imposing

unnecessary regulatory burdens and to develop programs to reduce or eliminate those

burdens. Regulations issued in response to emergency situations, that had statutory or

judicial deadlines, dealt with military or foreign affairs, or related to agency administrative

matters, were exempted from the moratorium. The moratorium was extended, and remained

in force until the end of the Bush Administration.

When President Clinton assumed office in 1993, he took several major steps to reform

the regulatory process. In September 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12866,

which revoked E.O. 12291 and E.O. 12498, but, with some modification, incorporated the

major provisions of the two orders, in particular cost-benefit analysis and centralized review

and clearance of regulations by OMB. Independent regulatory boards and commission again

were exempted from the order.

President Clinton took several additional steps to address regulatory problems. Early

in 1993, he established the National Performance Review (NPR), a task force headed by the

Vice President, which generated several reports designed to improve the regulatory process.

On March 4, 1995, the President instructed agencies to review their existing regulations and

eliminate or revise those that were outdated or otherwise in need of reform. In April 1996,

in a further effort to reduce regulatory costs to small businesses, President Clinton directed

agency heads to use their enforcement discretion to waive all or a portion of a penalty for a

regulatory violation that was corrected within a reasonable time, or when the amount waived

was used to correct the violation.

Upon assuming office on January 20, 2001, President George W. Bush directed that no

new or proposed regulations be published until reviewed and cleared by one of his appointees,

that regulations sent to the Office of the Federal Register at the end of the Clinton

CRS-7

IB95035

05-22-01

Administration that had not yet been published be returned to the issuing agency for review

and approval, and that the effective date of those regulations that had been published but not

yet taken effect be postponed for 60 days. Regulations issued by Independent regulatory

boards and commissions were exempted from the moratorium, as were regulations issued in

response to a health or safety emergency or legislative or judicial deadline.

Congressional Efforts to Reform the Process

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress increasingly relied on the legislative veto to

block final regulations. Statutes applicable to several agencies and some programs made their

final regulations subject to either a one-house or two-house veto before they could be

implemented. During the period, numerous bills were introduced to enact a generic legislative

veto provision applicable to all regulations. Such efforts collapsed after the Supreme Court

ruled the legislative veto unconstitutional, because it violated bicameralism and the

“presentation” clause of the Constitution. (INS v. Chadha, 103 S.Ct. 2764. See also

Consumers Union, Inc., v. FTC and Consumer Energy Council of America v. FERC, 103

S.Ct. 3556, reinforcing the earlier decision.)

Over the years, Congress has considered numerous proposals to reform the regulatory

process. Major reform legislation contained provisions requiring agencies to prepare

cost-benefit analysis for their major regulations and centralizing review and clearance of those

regulations in OMB. Other provisions sought to establish regulatory budgets; sunset

regulations, programs, and agencies; revise and expand judicial review of regulatory actions;

and require federal reimbursement of state and local governments for costs incurred in

complying with federal regulations. While none of the comprehensive reform proposals

passed, several other important measures designed to reduce the cost and burden of

regulations were enacted, including the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, since amended, sought to minimize the cost and burden

imposed by federal paperwork requirements and to maximize the usefulness of the

information collected. It established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

in OMB, making it responsible for reviewing and clearing agency information collection

requirements. OIRA also became the central clearing house for agency rulemaking actions.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), since amended, directed agencies

to prepare analyses indicating how their regulations would impact on smaller entities,

including businesses, organizations, and state and local governments. The Act encouraged

agencies to tailor regulations so that they were less burdensome to smaller entities. Copies

of the analyses were to be sent for review and comment to the Office of Advocacy in the

Small Business Administration. The Act also required agencies to publish semiannual

regulatory agendas describing regulatory actions they are developing. Amendments in 1996,

discussed below, have strengthened the RFA.

Additional actions, begun in the 1970s, taken by Congress to reform the regulatory

process resulted in several statutes deregulating certain sectors of the economy, including

banking, telecommunications, and transportation. Economic deregulation has had a

significant effect on the economy. The impact has been massive and widespread, affecting

both the suppliers of those services and the consumers. Airline deregulation also resulted in

CRS-8

IB95035

05-22-01

the elimination of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Economic deregulation efforts continued in

1995, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished.

Statutes Enacted Recently to Reform the Process

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( 2 U.S.C. 602) was one of several major

regulatory reform measures passed by the 104th Congress. The act requires agencies to

prepare a cost-benefit and other assessment before issuing (1) any general notice of proposed

rulemaking likely to result in any rule that includes any Federal mandate likely to result in

expenditures of $100,000,000 or more in any year, and (2) any final rule for which a general

notice of proposed rulemaking was published. (The act exempts independent regulatory

boards and commissions.) The assessment is to include the extent to which costs to state,

local, and tribal governments may be paid with federal funds. When developing such

regulations, agencies must consider reasonable alternatives and select the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome of the alternatives, or explain why such alternatives were

not chosen. The act also allows for judicial review, but only to redress agency failure to

prepare written statements and analyses accompanying regulations.

A second important measure passed was the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA), (Title II, P.L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 857-74), which incorporates

several regulatory relief laws under five subtitles, four of which seek to ease regulatory costs

and burdens on small entities. Subtitle A (110 Stat. 858) requires agencies issuing regulations

and the Small Business Administration to assist small businesses in understanding and

complying with those regulations. Subtitle B (110 Stat. 860) creates a Small Business and

Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and Regional Small Business Regulatory

Fairness Boards to assist small businesses. In certain circumstances, it allows for reducing

or waiving civil penalties for violations of statutory or regulatory requirements. Subtitle C

(110 Stat. 862) amends the Equal Access to Justice Act by awarding attorney fees and court

costs to private parties, including large entities, if a court finds that an agency’s adversary

adjudication in a hearing is substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer,

as well as unreasonable when compared with such decision. The award is nullified, however,

if the party has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or if

special circumstances make an award unjust.

Subtitle D (110 Stat. 864) amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act by removing the bar

to judicial review of an agency’s regulatory flexibility analysis. Federal courts may now order

corrective action regarding such analysis, and defer enforcement of a rule if they find the

analysis defective. Agencies also are required to send a proposed rule and copy of an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, or a determination that such analysis is not required, to the

Small Business Administration for comment. In addition, a review panel consisting of

officials from the issuing agency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy in SBA are to consider the impact on small businesses of

regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration.

Subtitle E (110 Stat. 868), the Congressional Review Act, requires agencies to submit

new regulations to the Congress and the General Accounting Office (GAO) before they can

take effect. GAO is to prepare a report on each major rule, which it sends to Congress, to

assure that the agency has complied with procedural requirements regarding cost-benefit

CRS-9

IB95035

05-22-01

analysis, regulatory flexibility analysis, and specified sections of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act. Congress has 60 legislative days in which to block a regulation by passing a

joint resolution of disapproval. The resolution becomes law if it is signed by the President,

or, if a presidential veto is overridden. An agency may not issue a regulation that is

substantially the same as one that has been disapproved by a joint resolution, unless the action

is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the disapproval of the original regulation.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163-85) provided for a

6-year authorization of appropriations for OIRA, and required a 10% paperwork reduction

in FY1996 and FY1997, and requires a 5% reduction in each of the following four years.

Agencies are required to created an office responsible for ensuring compliance with

information policies and information resources management.

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009) Title II,

Section 645, directed OMB to submit to Congress by September 30, 1997, a report

estimating the cost and benefit of major regulations and of all federal regulatory programs.

The report was to analyze the direct and indirect impact of regulations on the private sector,

state and local governments, and the federal government, and to recommend regulations that

should be revised or eliminated. Appropriation act riders over the last several years have

required OMB to continue submitting an annual report on the cost and benefit of federal

regulations, as well as to issue guidelines to agencies that would standardize measures of

costs and benefits and the format of accounting statements.

Finally, the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-312, 114 Stat. 1248-1250),

requires the General Accounting Office (GAO) to independently evaluate the cost-benefit

analysis prepared by agencies when they develop a regulation. When an agency publishes an

economically significant rule, whether proposed or final (including an interim or direct final

rule), a chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction of either House, may

request the GAO to review and report on the rule within 180 days. An economically

significant rule is defined as any rule having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million

or more, or adversely affecting in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, or

other specified sectors. The report is to include an independent evaluation of the agency’s

analysis of potential benefits and costs, or other analysis required, any alternative approaches

considered in the rulemaking, as well as a summary of the results and the implications of those

results. GAO is to evaluate the agency’s data, methodology, and assumptions used in

developing the rule, and to explain how any strengths or weaknesses in those data,

methodology, and assumptions support or detract from conclusions reached by the agency,

and the implications of those strengths or weaknesses. GAO review is contingent upon

receiving yearly appropriations of $5,200,000 for such review. Within three years, the

Comptroller General is to recommend to Congress whether it should permanently authorize

the act.

In 1995, the House of Representatives also took a unilateral step at regulatory reform

by establishing a “Corrections Calendar” (H.Res. 168) designed to expedite the repeal of rules

and regulations deemed excessive or “dumb.” Bills reported favorably from committee may

be placed on the Corrections Calendar on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. A

three-fifths vote is necessary to pass corrections legislation.

CRS-10

IB95035

05-22-01

The above reforms have had mixed results. Congress used the Congressional Review

Act (CRA) in March 2001 to disapprove, for the first time, a newly issued regulation. The

joint resolution to disapprove an ergonomics regulation issued by OSHA became law because

the President favored the action. Earlier, two federal district court cases confirm that

agencies cannot ignore the provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act that require them to

consider the impact of their regulations on small entities. In Northwest Mining Association

v. Babbitt, 5 F.Supp. 2nd 9 (D.D.C. 1998), the court overturned a regulation issued by the

Bureau of Land Management because the BLM failed to consider the impact on a small

business. In Southern Fishing Association vs. Daley, 995 F.Supp. 1411 (M.D. Fla. 1998),

the court overturned a regulation issued by the National Marine Fishery Service for the same

reason. On the other hand the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) has had limited

impact as agencies have been able to issue major rules without preparing the cost-benefit

analysis required by the UMRA. The reports issued by OMB estimating the costs and

benefits of federal regulations have been incomplete, and its benefits estimates have been

questioned. In a 1999 report, the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that Congress

may have to look elsewhere if it “wants an independent assessment of executive agencies’

regulatory costs and benefits . . .” Congress appears to have done that under the Truth in

Regulating Act.

Current Regulatory Policy and Procedure

While agencies develop and issue their regulations under the general framework of the

Administrative Procedure Act, except for independent regulatory boards and commissions,

the more prescriptive provisions of E.O. 12866, require that—

agencies regulate only upon reasoned determination that benefits justify

costs;

! significant (major) regulations be submitted to OMB, but only economically

significant regulations require OMB review. Agencies are required to

choose regulatory objectives to address significant problems or compelling

public needs; choose regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits and

minimize burdens for society and that are designed in the most cost-effective

manner;

! agencies include in their annual regulatory plans comments regarding risk

analysis;

! agencies periodically submit to OMB a plan to review existing regulations;

! the Vice President play a more active, central role in the regulatory process;

! a newly created Regulatory Working Group serve as a forum to assist

agencies in identifying and analyzing important regulatory issues; each

agency designate a Regulatory Policy Officer who is to be involved in each

stage of the regulatory process; and OIRA disclose communications with

agencies and private citizens regarding rules submitted for review;

! regulations dealing with emergency situations, statutory and judicial

deadlines, and regulations issued by independent regulatory boards and

commissions be exempted from the order.

!

A significant regulation is defined as one that may—

CRS-11

IB95035

05-22-01

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely

affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment or public health or safety, or state, local,

or tribal governments or communities (regulations in this category are

considered economically significant, requiring detailed cost-benefit analyses

and OMB review);interfere with an action taken or planned by another

agency;

! materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or

loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or raise novel legal

or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles for regulatory planning and review specified in the order.

!

LEGISLATION

P.L. 107-5, 115 Stat. 7, S. J. Res. 6 (Nicholas et. al.)

A joint resolution of disapproval providing for congressional disapproval of the rule

submitted by the Department of Labor under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, relating

to ergonomics. Signed into law on March 20.

H.R. 105 (Hayworth)

Congressional Responsibility Act of 2001. Requires Congress and the President to fulfill

their constitutional duty to take personal responsibility for Federal laws. Introduced on Jan.

3, 2001, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules.

H.R. 203 (Sweeney)

National Small Business Regulatory Assistant Act of 2001. Directs the Administrator

of the Small Business Administration to establish a pilot program to provide regulatory

compliance assistant to small business concerns, and for other purposes. Introduced on Jan.

3, 2001, and referred to the Small Business Committee.

H.R. 212 (Sweeney)

Private Property Protection Act of 2001. Seeks to ensure that Federal agencies establish

appropriate procedures for assessing whether or not regulations might result in the taking of

private property, and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress regarding

such takings under programs of the department.

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

U.S. President (Clinton), “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 12866,

Federal Register, vol. 58, September 30, 1993, p. 51735.

U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Report to

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations: 2000 Report. At

[http//www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/index.html].

CRS-12

IB95035

05-22-01

U.S. General Accounting Office. Regulatory Accounting: Analysis of OMB’s Reports on the

Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation. April 1999. GAO/GGD-99-59.

[Washington] 76 p.

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB10004. Clean Air Act Issues in the 106th Congress.

CRS Issue Brief IB10003. Environmental Protection Legislation in the 106th Congress.

CRS Issue Brief IB94036. The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in

Environmental Protection.

CRS Issue Brief IB89102. Water Quality: Implementing the Clear Water Act.

CRS Issue Brief IB97014. Wetland Issues in the 105th Congress.

CRS Reports

CRS Report RL30116. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: A Brief Overview

and Assessment After Three Years.

CRS Report RL30326. Cost-Benefit Analysis of EPA Regulations: An Overview.

CRS Report 95-760. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Regulatory Issues.

CRS Report 96-949. Environmental Reauthorizations and Regulatory Reform: From the

104th Congress to the 106th.

CRS Report RL30183. Federal Regulations and the Federal Register: Statistical

Measurements, 1976-1999.

CRS Report RS20493. Property Rights: House Judiciary Committee Reports H.R. 2372.

CRS-13