Federal agencies Legislation

Coalition opposes ‘extremist’ Regulatory Accountability Act

capitol

Photo: iStock/Thinkstock

Washington – The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 150 unions and nonprofit organizations, recently voiced its opposition to the bipartisan Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 and asked the Senate to reject the proposed legislation, which would alter the federal rulemaking process.

In a position statement released April 26, the coalition suggested RAA might more appropriately be dubbed the “Regulatory Paralysis Act,” and announced that it has adopted the social media hashtag #GoAwayRAA.

“The Regulatory Accountability Act would cripple the process for issuing and enforcing rules to ensure we have clean air and water, safe food and consumer products, fair wages and safe workplaces, and many other key protections,” the position statement reads.

A later section adds: “It already takes years for a new public protection to navigate the current regulatory process. This bill would require agencies to conduct even more unnecessary and highly speculative analyses, making it take even longer for agencies to create and implement vital new rules.”

One version of the legislation passed the House in January. On April 26, Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) introduced a version for the Senate. If passed, the legislation would be combined into one bill.

The Senate version of the legislation requires a stricter cost-benefit analysis for regulations, establishes automatic review protocol for major regulations and “would ensure that agencies use sound scientific and technical data to justify new rules,” states an April 26 press release issued by Portman’s office.

“We need a smarter regulatory process that promotes job creation, innovation, and economic growth, while also continuing to protect public health and safety and the environment,” Portman said in the release. “This legislation would bring our outdated federal regulatory process into the 21st century by requiring agencies to use the best scientific and economic data available, strengthening checks and balances, and giving the public a voice in the process.”

Members of the coalition disagree. In an April 26 press release, Robert Weissman, president of watchdog group Public Citizen, said “the extremist RAA would impose a permanent blockage on government agencies charged with protecting the American public from predatory corporations.” Scott Slesinger, Natural Resources Defense Council legislative director, agreed.

“This bill, introduced under the guise of ‘reform,’ would make it next to impossible to protect the public from dirty air and water and other dangers to health and safety,” Slesinger said in the release. “It would skew the entire system so that polluters’ views trump any concern about the public. This measure is the ultimate rollback, rewriting countless laws that have safeguarded the public for decades.”

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)

Title

Jim
May 5, 2017
The current process is strangling economic growth and has issued unnecessary legislation that while sounding good when proposed and issued isn't achieving the goal. I'm certainly willing to give RAA a chance and see what it accomplishes, not what partisan politics claims it will and won't do. It can always be changed again if it isn't achieving the desired result and should that happen hopefully the memories of why it came to be would be a message to use sound science, not pop culture to make important decisions for safety and the environment with future legislation.

Title

Bob
May 5, 2017
Really. I think the coalition that is bringing this up (unions and what ever falls under non profit organizations?) are being hypocrites. I know in the state I live in unions have there say such heavily weighted in their favor to get implemented in a company. They don't have to disclose when a vote is. They pretty much can get that below majority number to get installed in a facility and they don't have to disclose their meetings and when they vote. Boy that doesn't sound one sided does it? But this OK. The union tells prospective members at a company how their dues go to get them things in contracts for the company yet when you go on their annual statement budget what is there biggest use of money (getting more members). If your spending money on getting more members with my dues how is that benefitting me as a member? Also when you look at the raises they "fight for you" minus the membership dues, they are actually at best the same as if the union wasn't there but in most cases worst off. Yet when a company ask a complaining institution or government who decides to set regulations on say levels of a contaminant that are unachievable with todays technology and then fine them for that, that is OK. I have also heard the argument that is how we push industry to come up with better technology. That is great and there is some truth to it. But then this same group complains about big business for charging more for their product. Guess what there is a cost to developing this expected technology and guess what they have to answer to you the stock holders for an expected return on their investment. So in summary all there asking the concerned institution to do is substantiate their claim with the same expectations your asking the industry or group to fix what ever your asking to be fixed. That to me is being reasonable.

Title

Dan
May 5, 2017
“Would ensure that agencies use sound scientific and technical data to justify new rules,” I totally agree with the legislation, to many regulations are proposed using non-scientific data. Unless you can prove it, it isn't science. Evolution began as theory and without real proof is now fact. Same with global warming, articles written 15 -20 years ago would have the coastal cities under water and every polar bear dead, it didn't and isn't happening. So we put a new twist on it and call it global climate change (still not science). If green house gasses such as carbon dioxide are doing so much damage why aren't we planting more trees, I was taught trees take in carbon dioxide and give of oxygen, according to NC State University they do. Maybe NC State isn't teaching real science or maybe too many agencies are using false science and manufactured data to pass rules they "think" would benefit the planet. Show me the scientific formula for "I think" and maybe I'll change my mind. I like the fact that the NSC allows for comments, I wish more organizations would.

Title

Eric Simmons
May 5, 2017
I personally find Public Citizen to be an extremist group not worthy of any attention. When I look at all the busy work rules I deal with everyday and rules with minimal return taking away from real safety advancement, I sometimes feel so helpless. Spending the majority of my time in my office satisfying red tape and not out mentoring and training workers, I know for a fact that the regulatory process has long been hi-jacked by busybodies and not used for common sense . Jail time for CEOs who disregard safety would solve the problem much faster than miles of red tape.

Title

Peter
May 5, 2017
I'll admit that I have not read the proposed Portman-Heitkamp bill, but it seems to me that we should welcome legislation that seeks to improve the efficiency and justification process of regulations. There is certainly a need to bring our 'outdated federal regulatory process into the 21st century'... I have had countless conversations with my local/regional inspectors/permitting engineers in which they apologize for the slow and antiquated processes that we (industry) must use to report, permit, etc with the agency. Improvements to technology and processes that our state and federal agencies use would benefit both our agencies and our industries. In addition, I find it hard to believe that this legislation would 'make it next to impossible to protect the public from dirty air and water and other dangers to health and safety' as Public Citizen claims. While we have not arrived at the time when companies perfectly 'self-police' and 'self-report', it is now widely understood by industry that it is in the best interest of the company to be proactive in their efforts to protect both the health and safety of the environment and their employees. The establishment of, and priority for the presence of EHS professionals, Management Systems and ISO Health and Safety Certifications by companies demonstrates the understanding that a proactive, preventative approach is the best way to operate a sustainable business. In my opinion, agencies no longer have to 'strong arm' a company into compliance or protection of the environment or it's employees, and our citizens/consumers have demonstrated that companies must listen to concerns of poor stewardship, or face the negative publicity and distrust of the company/product that comes with it.

Peter
May 5, 2017
Jim- I agree with your comment- I have been on the receiving end of unnecessary legislation, and am willing to give RAA a chance to see what it accomplishes.

Title

Dan
May 5, 2017
It is headlines such as these that exemplify the problems that media outlets are facing. While the information that the Act has been proposed and what the Act consists of would be appropriate for this publication, the misleading headline and tone of the article highlights the basis of the "fake news" issues that are rampant within today's press. Since the "Coalition for Sensible Safeguards", basically a committee of the "Public Citizen" group, can be honestly positioned at one end of the spectrum concerning their perspective on the issues addressed within the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act, their labeling of the act as extremist is misleading. Of course that group will see the proposed legislation as extremist. Nearly any legislation from centrist to the opposite end of the spectrum from their viewpoint would be considered extremist. Responsible reporting would have described the proposed legislation and provided the point of view from both ends of the spectrum and points in between. There is a common misconception that if the information is not of the opinion of the author, then it is "extremist". The reality is that it is simply not the opinion of the author, which is unimportant to the reader. If it is intended to be an editorial, then be clear on that intention. It is irresponsible reporting like this that discourages readers from viewing information, current and future, from this same source.