Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
U.S. House of Representatives
 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
 
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman
    
Assessing Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation
 
PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORTU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 
112
TH
CONGRESS
F
EBRUARY
9,
 
2011
 
 
 
Findings:
 
•
 
Jobs lost in construction, manufacturing, and administrative and support servicesrepresent almost 2/3 of the total jobs lost since May 2008. These hardest hitindustries have seen little improvement in employment rates since the beginningof the recession. 
•
 
Small businesses are the engines that propel the American economy forward –they provide half of all private sector jobs and they represent 99.7 percent of allemployer firms – totaling over 27 million businesses in this country.  However,according to a recent survey, only four percent of small businesses indicate thatthey plan to create new jobs in the next few months. 
•
 
As important as small businesses are to the growth and prosperity of theAmerican economy, they are also the most sensitive to the burden imposed byfederal regulations.  According to one study, small firms bear a regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee whereas large firms with more than 500 employees incur acost of $7,755 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. 
•
 
The proprietor of a small business typically serves as the regulatory enforcerwithin her company – a role that is difficult to perform when so many other tasksneed to be fulfilled, and when regulations are crafted that fail to take thischallenging situation into account. 
•
 
Manufacturing is the industry hit the hardest by regulatory costs, with per firmcosts at $688,944 – half a million dollars greater than the national average cost forall industries. 
•
 
Small manufacturers bear a proportionally larger regulatory burden with anestimated cost of $26,316 per employee –  more than double the burden that isfaced by larger manufacturers. 
•
 
The significant regulatory burden on American manufacturers complicates theirability to compete with international trade partners.  According to researchcommissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, “structural costsimposed on U.S. manufacturers including regulation create a 17.6 percent costdisadvantage when compared with nine major industrialized countries.” 
•
 
Uncertainty of future regulation chills capital formation and can leave U.S.businesses with less investment capital if the money is diverted to foreignmarkets. 
•
 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revocation of a longstanding andlegitimate permit to operate at the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in Logan County, WestVirginia provides a prime example of government action that job creators saycreates significant uncertainty and exerts a chilling effect on future investment.
 
  
•
 
As regulators in the United States may be creating unnecessary regulatoryuncertainty, our international competitors are seeking to entice America’spotential job creators to set up shop within their borders - taking steps to maketheir countries more attractive to foreign investors. 
•
 
In many cases the benefits to society of a new regulation can outweigh thesecosts.  For example, government-required nutrition labels on food productsprovide consumers with important information about the products they consumein a uniform format. 
•
 
EPA’s handling of the Boiler Heater Maximum Achievable Control Technology(Boiler MACT), is an example of the Agency getting the cost benefit balancewrong.  By the agency’s own admission, the proposed rule was too aggressive andwas not informed by adequate information about the affected industries.However, due to a court order, and EPA’s initial aggressive approach toimplementation, EPA will be forced to issue Boiler MACT by February 20, 2011. 
•
 
The debate over the impact of federal regulation lies not in whether an agencyshould regulate, rather with how the agency exercises the discretion that Congresshas granted to it. 
•
 
The administrative process to develop rules and regulations should be executedwith maximum transparency and predictability, while also providing the regulatedcommunity with a meaningful opportunity for dialogue with those crafting theregulatory mandates. 
•
 
On January 21, 2011, President Obama issued E.O. 13563 directing agencies to“take into account…the cost of cumulative regulations.” This directive is animportant step towards understanding how the Federal government should work with the private sector.  Job creators do not live in a world where they are onlysubject to one regulation issued by one agency.  Rather, job creators are subject toa myriad of regulations and compliance obligations. 
•
 
The utilities sector offers fertile ground to begin to understand how federalagencies should take into account the cumulative impact of regulations: fromearly 2009 to 2017, the industry will have to contend with no less than 35 separateregulatory deadlines.  Those affected say looming regulatory changes havealready caused two power plants to shut down early. 
•
 
While the Department of Labor has pulled back on two of its most controversialproposals, OSHA noise standards and OSHA Form 300 MusculoskelatalDisorders (MSD) reporting requirements; job creators expressed significantconcern for the OSHA Combustible Dust Management rule, proposed changes inOSHA Consultation Agreements, and OSHA’s Injury & Illness PreventionProgram (“I2P2”).
 
 
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more