Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
    • Member Portal >
      • Directory
      • Forms
      • Graphics
      • Minutes
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
    • Member Portal >
      • Directory
      • Forms
      • Graphics
      • Minutes

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Holding Congress Accountable on the Regulatory Accountability Act

8/15/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nicholas Parsons
Nicholas Parsons is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.
​

Political buzzwords like “regulatory accountability” sound great, in theory. In the case of apparently superfluous regulations, , accountability  is appealing. The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA),  introduced in the House of Representatives last January, was devised with this purpose in mind. In theory, by either amending current or preventing future regulations, our government could cut unnecessary regulatory costs and redundancies. In the words of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the RAA “would require agencies to be more open and accountable to the public when they propose ‘high-impact’ rules,” defined as regulations estimated to cost more than a billion dollars per year. [1] [2]
​

However, if misused, the powers endowed by this act will cost our country massively. Such is the case in terms of environmental protections. Oftentimes those so-called “high-impact” rules are the most impactful, and their weight on the economy should be secondary to their functional exigency. As the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards puts it, the RAA “would cripple the process for issuing and enforcing regulations that ensure we have clean air and water, healthy food and consumer products, fair wages, safe workplaces and many other key protections.” [3] In essence, “high-impact” regulations such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act have a high impact not just on the US economy, but on Americans’ health and the environment, and these factors need to be taken into account.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards is not the only public interest organization which opposes the RAA. Numerous environmental advocacy groups are against the Act, due to its limitation of  the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and numerous other broad reaching health regulations. In a letter addressed to Representatives, thirteen signing environmental groups oppose the Act as “a more subtle but equally extreme attack on public protections [such] as the REINS Act.” [4] In addition, the National Resources Defense Council lists twenty-two regulations which could be negatively affected by the RAA, if it is enacted in its current form. These regulations fall in categories such as food safety, clean water, air travel safety, and numerous other pertinent public issues. [5]

The current language of the act has many problematic implications for our most necessary regulations. For one, the current Act would slow down the means by which regulations are imposed. In instances where an emergency rule must be put into place quickly, the stipulations of the RAA slow down the process. For instance, one section of the RAA specifies that for any regulation that would cost more than $100,000,000, the creating agency “shall publish advance notice of proposed rulemaking” 90 days prior to the rule’s inception. [2]

During this 90 day period, a number of events must occur, including, a hearing in which opponents may argue against the rule. Although such a listening session is both valid and necessary, the language of the RAA specifies that a final decision on the rule is made based on: “best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other evidence and information concerning the need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.” The wording here seems to denote that an act is judged based on calculations which take into consideration both sides of the argument. However, these detailed cost-benefit analyses can take time and valuable resources from the agency in question; especially, challenging when funds are short and time is of the essence.

One of the additional harms of the Act is its provision that regulators must utilize “the least costly rule considered during the rulemaking”. [2] This valuation of frugality over all else can be dangerous when dealing with such essentials as clean water or air. Where the costs are worth it, as in the case of the Clean Water Act which protects our lakes and streams, the language of this Act lends itself to cutting corners for the sake of minimizing expense.
The current language of the Regulatory Accountability Act would allow our most fundamental regulations to be upended, and it would slow the creation of new, urgent regulations. Environmental agencies and advocacy groups oppose the Act for the threat it carries towards rules which currently protect our health and our surrounding world. Although accountability is both important and necessary when creating and carrying out any regulation, we must strike a balance between the accountable and the insurmountable.




1: "Regulatory Accountability Act One Pager." U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/regulatory_accountability_act_one_pager.pdf.
2: Goodlatte, Bob. "Text - H.R.5 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017." Congress.gov. March 29, 2017. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5/text.
3: "The Regulatory Accountability Act." Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. Accessed July 19, 2017. http://sensiblesafeguards.org/issues/regulatory-accountability-act/.
4: Letter to Congress Oppose Regulatory Accountability Act NRDC. From NRDC.org. Accessed July 19, 2017. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/letter-to-congress-oppose-regulatory-accountability-act-20170110.pdf.
5: “Protections Of Public Health & Safety Potentially Blocked by the So-Called ‘Regulatory Accountability Act’.” NRDC. Accessed July 20, 2017. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/rules-at-risk-from-raa-5-16-2017.pdf
Photo Credit: Flickr User Susana Valenzano


The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.


​
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    ACA
    ACLU
    Alana Mattei
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Anna Schwartz
    Arrest
    Artificial Intelligence
    Ashley Kim
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Biotechnology
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Civil Rights
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Congress
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Data
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Due Process
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Environment
    EPA
    FCC
    FISA
    Flint
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    Frank Geng
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Gun Control
    Habib Olapade
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Implied Powers
    Inequality
    Internet Privacy
    Interviews
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Jury Nullification
    Justin Yang
    Katie Kaufman
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Matthew Caulfield
    Media
    Michael Keshmiri
    Minimum Age
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicole Greenstein
    Obamacare
    Omar Khoury
    Opioid Crisis
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Law
    Pharmaceuticals
    Pheby Liu
    Philadelphia Law
    Police
    Presidential Powers
    Public Education
    Public Heatlh
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Renewable Energy
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Second Amendment
    Shannon Alvino
    Siddarth Sethi
    Social Media
    State Law
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Sue And Settle
    Supreme Court
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Technology
    Telecommunications
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Transgender Rights
    Trump
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Unfiled
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​