2.8 Making Agencies Accountable

 Making Agencies Accountable.canvas.jpg

1. Making Agencies Accountable (handout-linked at bottom)

    1. Executive Control
    2. Legislative Control
    3. Judicial control

2. Politics- How to control the policy process

    1. Capture-Gaining Control
    2. Going Native! –Losing Control
  • Executive Control
    • Executive Orders
    • Appointments
    • Signing Statements
    • Reorganization
  • Legislative Control
      • Budget and Oversight
        • Police patrol, fire alarm, investigation
          • Police Patrol- proactive
          • Fire Alarm-reactive
        • Legislative Veto (Unconstitutional under INS v. Chada)
        • Congressional Review-allows Congress 60 days to dissaprove newly announced agency regulations.
          • Agency regulation may be nullified by a joint resolution of Congressional disapproval and signed by President
  • Judicial control

 

 

 

Clinton’s Last-Minute Environmental Regs: More Targets for the Congressional Review Act

2001

Bill Clinton’s end-of-administration pardons and other scandals have garnered considerable attention over the past two months. However, they are not the most regrettable things the former president did during his final weeks in office, as his flood of last-minute environmental rules will have far more damaging effects. If allowed to stand, these rules would provide little, if any, benefit while imposing substantial costs on millions of Americans. Fortunately, Congress has a tool to right these regulatory wrongs—the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This act was successfully employed several weeks ago to overturn the Labor Department’s midnight ergonomics rule. Congress now should be encouraged to press on, using CRA to rein in other hasty rules.

 

Background. In the weeks leading up to inauguration day, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), and other regulatory agencies cranked out final rules at a furious pace. Many were highly controversial, threatening to do far more economic harm than environmental good. In some cases, these concerns were the very reason the rules had not been enacted earlier. However, knowing that a final rule is harder to undo than a pending one, and that the incoming Bush administration may not want to go forward with several of these measures, the outgoing Clinton team rushed to finish as much as possible.

 

Faced with this mountain of new rules, incoming White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card issued a memorandum providing the new administration with an opportunity to review them. The memorandum called on all incoming agency heads to hold up publication of any more Clinton administration rules that had not yet appeared in the Federal Register, and pushed back the effective date of recently published rules by 60 days.

 

This regulatory respite has given the new Bush appointees time to weigh the merits of these rules, and consider modifications or outright repeals. For example, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently announced her intention to propose withdrawing a January 22 rule lowering the allowable arsenic level in drinking water. Whitman cited high costs, especially for small rural communities, and uncertain public-health benefits from tightening the existing standard.

 

However, only a few rules will come under such scrutiny. Most agency heads are busy enough trying to implement their own agendas and deal with new challenges, and are unlikely to comprehensively review every problematic Clinton rule.

 

A role for Congress. Assuming that most of these eleventh-hour environmental regulations are not reversed at the agency level, Congress should step in. Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can vote down any major regulation by passing a resolution of disapproval, which is essentially a bill forbidding the agency from going forward with the rule in question. CRA was not successfully used during the Clinton years, largely because regulatory critics in Congress never had the two-thirds majority necessary to override a certain presidential veto.

 

But several weeks ago, the new Congress and president demonstrated a willingness to use CRA to take on questionable regulations. Congress passed a resolution of disapproval of Clinton’s so-called ergonomics rule, a massive Department of Labor effort to regulate workplace injuries linked to repetitive motions. President Bush signed the measure into law, the first such regulatory rejection under CRA. Further, despite the predictable demagoguery from labor unions and some politicians about worker safety being jeopardized for the sake of corporate profits, news of the ergonomics rule’s demise received only minimal critical coverage.

 

Now that CRA has been successfully used to strike down one Clinton administration regulation, Congress should target additional rules. Here are a few of the many recent environmental regulations that deserve a similar fate:

 

Motor-fuel regulations. Despite the fact that last summer’s soaring gasoline prices were caused, in substantial part, by unnecessary EPA regulations, the agency has since promulgated new rules that threaten to further restrict supplies and raise prices. This includes a measure to reduce by 97 percent the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel, enacted on January 18. This diesel-sulfur rule will further complicate the process of refining petroleum, possibly leading to localized shortages as well as overall increases as high as 11 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, motor-vehicle emissions have been declining substantially over the past three decades, raising doubts as to the need for such stringent additional controls.

 

Home appliance efficiency standards. DOE used the final days of the Clinton era to tighten energy conservation standards for several home appliances. On January 12, the agency set new conservation standards for clothes washers. These standards will add approximately $249 to the purchase price of a new machine, and may adversely affect product choice, performance, and features. On January 22, the very last day Clinton regulations could be published in the Federal Register, the agency enacted new standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps.[7] This rule will add $335 to the price of a new air-conditioning system, and $332 for a heat pump.[8] Even DOE concedes that many consumers will not earn back this amount in the form of energy savings, and that low-income households will suffer disproportionately. On January 17, the agency finalized a new conservation standard for water heaters, despite safety concerns raised by some manufacturers.

 

In all three cases, the marginal energy savings are trivial, and the only real consequence of these rules will be to raise costs and compromise consumer satisfaction for these home appliances.

 

The roadless rule. On January 12, the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service finalized a rule prohibiting road construction on nearly 60 million acres of federally owned land. This rule would have devastating effects on many communities that depend on timber harvesting and other productive activities in the surrounding federal property. It would also keep substantial domestic natural-gas and oil deposits out of reach. Furthermore, the rule has not been shown to be necessary to protect ecosystems, and in fact may be counterproductive. For example, roads are necessary to bring in personnel and equipment to fight forest fires, and to engage in the kind of forest management necessary to prevent future catastrophic fires.

 

Writing safety rules could get tougher for FAA May 3, 2011

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — New airline safety regulations, including long-sought rules aimed at preventing exhausted pilots from flying, will be harder to issue if an industry-backed measure supported by House Republicans becomes law, federal aviation and safety officials are warning Congress.

 

A bill providing authority for Federal Aviation Administration programs that the House passed in March contains an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa. It would change the way the FAA goes about making regulations, including requiring an analysis of the effect proposed rules may have on the economy, private markets, productivity, employment and competitiveness.

 

The FAA would also be required to write separate safety rules for different segments of the airline industry — passenger airlines, cargo carriers, charters and others — even though the agency's oft-stated goal is to have "one level of safety" across the aviation industry.

 

A bill passed by the Senate earlier this year doesn't contain a similar provision, setting up a showdown between the two chambers.

 

FAA officials have declined to comment publicly about the Shuster amendment. Privately, the agency has been sending lawmakers who inquire a statement that says it "enshrines in legislation a set of procedural hoops that could have the effect of slowing down rulemaking projects underway and in the future."

 

Also, the amendment's economic analysis requirements "are written in a way that could make it more difficult to quantify what we are required to analyze, which could impact the agency's ongoing effort to achieve one level of safety," according to a copy of the statement obtained by The Associated Press.

 

National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said Shuster's amendment "would add complexity to the rulemaking process" and could halt several FAA efforts underway to craft new safety rules in response to the crash of a regional airliner near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people two years ago, including pilot fatigue regulations.

 

There have been 14 aviation accidents with 263 fatalities since 1993 in which fatigue was cited as the cause or a contributing factor, according to NTSB.

 

Shuster has denied the amendment would affect any rulemaking already in progress. But opponents said they can find nothing in the amendment's nine brief paragraphs that would prevent it from being applied to currently proposed regulations, as well as future ones.

 

"The congressman believes the amendment is clear enough on its face, that it has been drafted in a way that prevents retroactivity," said Shuster spokesman Jeff Urbanchuk. "If someone has a better way to clarify it, we're open to hearing from them."

 

Federal agencies, including the FAA, are already required to conduct an extensive analysis of proposed regulations to determine the cost to industry and how the costs will be justified by the benefits achieved. Often that means estimating how many lives will be saved and assigning them a dollar value.

 

The Shuster amendment would also require the FAA to "assess any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the economy, private markets — including productivity, employment and competitiveness — together with a quantification of such costs."

 

Urbanchuk and officials for the passenger, cargo and nonscheduled airline industries said the amendment is merely an attempt to put into law the intent of an executive order issued by President Barack Obama in January. That order directs all federal agencies to make sure that regulations aren't duplicative, that the public has opportunity to voice their concerns, that the best available means be used to quantify cost and that, where possible, agencies consider ways to reduce the burden of regulations.

 

The presidential order makes no mention of assessing the impact of proposed regulations on the overall economy or private markets.

 

"I'm not sure that it's broader than the president's executive order," said Sharon Pinkerton, a senior vice president at the Air Transport Association. The economy and jobs "are exactly the kinds of issues he's been talking about."

 

Oakley Brooks, president and CEO of the National Air Carrier Association, said the FAA failed to take into account the cost to nonscheduled airlines when drafting the pilot fatigue regulations.

 

"If the Shuster amendment will help the agencies to do proper cost-benefit analysis for all parts of the industry, then we think that's a good idea," Brooks said. Nonscheduled airlines fly over 90 percent of U.S. troops and 40 percent of military cargo around the world.

 

But Kevin Kuwik, a spokesman for the families of people killed in the Buffalo air crash, said the amendment is a "sneak attack" on the fatigue regulations.

 

"It muddies up the process on the front end and, worse, on the back end it gives them a chance to challenge it in court," Kuwik said.

Download Making Agencies Accountable.pdf