Search

How Will a 2-for-1 Regulatory Scheme Really Work?

Posted on 2/14/2017 by Roger Marks

According to the President’s Executive Order titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” agencies will now be required to nominate two regulations for repeal for every new regulation promulgated. 

While the initial Executive Order raised many questions, it deferred authority to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to lay out the specifics of how the new regulatory initiative would work. Now, the OMB issued a guidance document that answers some of those questions about how exactly a regulatory 2-out, 1-in process will work.    
 

What Regulations Will Be Affected?

Code of Federal RegulationsFirst and foremost, according to OMB’s guidance, the EO’s requirements will apply to significant regulatory actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (signed in 1993). EO 12866 defines a significant regulator action as an action that may: 
 
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 
 

How to Calculate Regulatory Costs and Savings 

When calculating the costs of new rules or the cost savings for rules proposed for elimination, regulators will measure cost as “opportunity cost to society.” This concept is defined in OMB Circular A-4, issued in September 2003.
 
The cost savings may be transferred within an Agency—meaning US EPA may eliminate two hazardous waste requirements to offset the cost of a new Clean Air Act rule, for example. If an individual agency cannot generate the savings needed to offset a new rulemaking, it can request in writing that savings from another agency be transferred to meet the requirement for offset.  

The OMB guidance document, offered in a helpful Q&A format, goes on to answer many other questions about how exactly the 2-out, 1-in scheme will play out. 
 
While the idea of eliminating regulations has raised concerns from some in the EHS community, it is worth noting that the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have all enacted similar offset requirements for new regulations in the past.
 
OMB has made it clear that the execution of this Executive Order will draw from existing principles for controlling regulatory costs found in documents like the above-mentioned 1993 EO and 2003 OMB Circular. In addition, limiting the EO to significant rulemakings, meaning those with an impact of $100 million or more, will limit the scope and should allow agencies some flexibility to advance less impactful rulemakings without a need for offset.  
 

We want to hear from you!

How do you feel about the idea of a 2-out, 1-in regulatory process? Do you have ideas for regulations that would provide great cost savings without affecting safety at your site?
 
Let us know on social media! We’re listening on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn
 
 

Tags: DOT, EPA, new rules, osha

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

Amazing instructor; real-life examples. Lion training gets better every year!

Frank Papandrea

Environmental Manager

Excellent job. Made what is very dry material interesting. Thoroughly explained all topics in easy-to-understand terms.

David Hertvik

Vice President

One of the best trainings I have ever received!

Brandon Morfin

EH&S Manager

I tried other environmental training providers, but they were all sub-standard compared to Lion. I will not stray from Lion again!

Sara Sills

Environmental Specialist

The workshop covered a lot of information without being too overwhelming. Lion is much better, more comprehensive than other training providers.

George Alva

Manufacturing Manager

As always, Lion never disappoints

Paul Resley

Environmental Coordinator

The instructor was great, explaining complex topics in terms that were easily understandable and answering questions clearly and thoroughly.

Brittany Holm

Lab Supervisor

The instructor was probably the best I ever had! He made the class enjoyable, was humorous at times, and very knowledgeable.

Mary Sue Michon

Environmental Administrator

The instructor's energy, enthusiasm, and knowledge of the subject make the class a great learning experience!

Brian Martinez

Warehouse Operator

Best course instructor I've ever had. Funny, relatable, engaging; made it interesting and challenged us as the professionals we are.

Amanda Schwartz

Environmental Coordinator

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Tips to identify and manage universal waste under more-stringent state regulations for generators and universal waste handlers in California.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.