Rulemaking

Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedures Act regulates the way in which administrative agencies of the U.S. federal government may propose and establish regulations, as well as, the Regulatory Flexibility Act which is a comprehensive effort by the U.S. federal government to balance the social goals of federal regulations with the needs and capabilities of small businesses and other small entities. Attempts to remove these two procedures would have detrimental impacts on industries by removing there right to provide public comments on rule changes.

Changing the Rule Making Process Would Create an Unacceptable Precedent. Exempting agencies from the Administrative Procedures Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act would prevent the development of scientifically sound, economically feasible safety and health standards as well as forego studies to determine the effects on small business.
The Impact of Proposed Regulations on Small Businesses Would be Lost. A review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is particularly important in fashioning a regulation so that it will impose the least level of burden while still protecting employees. Abandoning this process will result in regulations that will impose unnecessary burdens making compliance by small businesses much less likely. Small businesses often function differently from larger operations and the burdens of compliance can have a significant impact.
Removing Requirements from an Agency to Prove Regulations are Necessary is the Opposite of the Intended Rulemaking Procedures. Revising the burden of proof from requiring the agency to establish that a requirement is feasible, to requiring those subject to the requirement to prove that it is infeasible, i.e. to prove a negative concept is unnecessary, is the exact opposite of the intended rulemaking procedures and would provide no relief to employers concerned about the issuance of an inappropriate regulation.

Login