February 18, 2020

February 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act: Bill to Curb Regulations Introduced in House

In keeping with a Republican pledge to make regulatory reform a centerpiece of this Congress, lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced a bill to put the brakes on new regulations from federal agencies.

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act (H.R. 50) would introduce a host of new requirements at the earliest stages of the regulatory process, including one requiring that regulators consult with the regulated community before a rule costing at least $100 million in a year is proposed, and throughout the rulemaking process. The bill applies to all federal agencies, including independent agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Before publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, agencies would be required to publish a statement that provides a draft of the proposal, explains the need for it, and states how the rule would meet the need. The statement would include quantitative and qualitative assessments of both costs and benefits, along with a “detailed description” of regulators’ consultations with affected parties and a summary of the parties’ comments and concerns.

The bill also includes a provision giving leaders of any congressional committee authority to request a retrospective analysis of any agency regulation, followed by a report by the agency which in part would present an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the rule, including studies done outside the federal government.

On February 4, H.R. 50 passed in the House on a vote of 250-173 and was referred to committees of jurisdiction. The legislation drew some bipartisan support, but was criticized immediately by unions and public interest groups.

“Transparency and accountability are not partisan issues,” Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the Republican co-sponsor of the bill, said in a January 27 statement. “This legislation is purely about making government work better for the American people by requiring openness and honesty from Washington about the true cost of regulations, whether those costs come in dollars or in lost jobs.”

The Democratic co-sponsor, Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), said the bill “increases transparency in the regulatory process and protects state and local governments from the burden of unfunded and often unnecessary mandates that waste time and money.”

Others had a decidedly different take, describing the legislation as a giveaway to corporations by allowing businesses to kill proposed rules before the public even becomes aware of them. It also would burden agencies with busywork, they declared.

In a statement, Katherine McFate of the Center for Effective Government contended that the bill “doesn't improve or streamline the regulatory process, which is already plagued by hurdles and delays,” and added that the Act “would make it even more difficult for agencies to implement laws enacted by Congress.”

Recounting the Wall Street economic collapse, several food and product safety failures and environmental spills as examples of what he said were the costs of deregulation, Robert Weissman of Public Citizen commented, “All of them demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, not corporate interests.”

The bill is at least the second to come out of the new Congress dealing with regulations. In January, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527), which would require agencies to consider the indirect economic impacts of their rules on small businesses.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020


About this Author

Bradford T. Hammock, Jackson Lewis, workplace safety law attorney, Hazardous Conditions Lawyer

Bradford T. Hammock is a Principal in the Washington, D.C. Region office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He focuses his practice in the safety and health area, and is co-leader of the firm’s Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group.

Mr. Hammock’s national practice focuses on all aspects of occupational safety and health law. In particular, Mr. Hammock provides invaluable assistance to employers in a preventive practice: (1) conducting full-scale safety and health compliance audits; (2) reviewing and revising corporate safety and...

(703) 483-8300
Henry Chajet, Jackson Lewis, health safety attorney, dispute resolution lawyer, overcharge recoveries legal counsel
Of Counsel

Henry Chajet is Of Counsel in the Washington, D.C. Region office of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Mr. Chajet counsels and represents clients in environmental, health and safety (EH&S) matters and antitrust matters, focusing on crisis management, dispute resolution, trial and appellate litigation, standard setting, liability prevention, regulatory and congressional proceedings and “direct purchaser” overcharge recoveries for corporate clients in antitrust price manipulation cases. He defends investigations and enforcement actions by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other federal and state agencies, as well as in related tort claims and criminal cases, and in EH&S whistleblower or discrimination claims.

To achieve an integrated defense strategy at the initiation of a government investigation or enforcement action, Mr. Chajet coordinates forensic accounting and technical experts, insurance issues, government interviews, document production and public relations experts. He has extensive experience representing clients in cases involving fatal or serious injuries, explosions, chemical releases, fires, manufacturing, transportation and construction accidents, mine disasters and allegations of product toxicity or community harm. Mr. Chajet has served as co-lead counsel in successful, multimillion dollar recovery cases for corporate clients that were “direct purchasers” of commodities and products for which prices were artificially increased through monopoly price manipulation, violating antitrust law.