The Honorable Darrell E. Issa 
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter requesting Business Roundtable’s views on existing and proposed regulations that negatively impact the economy and the maintenance and creation of jobs. We very much appreciate the opportunity to provide input on your Committee’s important work in this area.

Business Roundtable long has been concerned about the costs and burdens imposed by the significant growth in government regulations. Regulatory burdens facing U.S. business are rapidly accelerating as a consequence of legislation passed over the previous two years that must now be implemented and by decisions made by regulatory agencies to aggressively expand their regulatory reach. This regulatory tsunami, occurring hastily and at a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to emerge from a deep recession, is hindering investment and job creation. As Ivan Seidenberg, Chairman of Business Roundtable, noted in a June 21, 2010 letter to then OMB Director Orszag, “[v]irtually every new regulation has an impact on recovery, competitiveness and job creation. Often that impact is negative. On an individual basis, most businesses can cope with each new regulation. But the collective impact on the economy is enormous, and often harmful.” /sites/default/files/legacy/uploads/hearings-letters/downloads/20100621_Letter_to_OMB_Director_Orszag_from_BRT_and_BC_with_Attachments.pdf

Regulations are like hidden taxes. They impose costs that are not readily apparent but are real. Just as the public must pay for government spending programs through higher taxes, they must also pay a high price for regulations – as customers, employees and stockholders. The soaring costs of regulation stifle productivity, wages and economic growth. Regulations also undermine jobs and international competitiveness. Poorly designed and implemented regulations impose costs much greater than their benefits and dampen economic activity.

In 1994, Business Roundtable issued Toward Smarter Regulation, which identified growing, poorly designed regulations in the environmental, health and safety areas as significant cost factors to business and our economy and proposed a framework for smarter, more effective regulation. The observations and recommendations contained in this document are just as relevant today as they were in 1994. In particular, Business Roundtable noted that regulations frequently are not well-coordinated among agencies and that the overall cumulative impact of regulations on our economy is not considered or well-understood. Sadly, little progress seems to have been made in the intervening years to establish a more sensible regulatory regime. I am enclosing a copy of this report for your review.

While burdensome regulations affect many areas of our economy, Business Roundtable members have identified three major areas of greatest concern: environmental regulation, financial reform, and health care and retirement benefits. In these areas, the potential regulatory costs and the sheer number of regulations with which business must comply pose significant challenges. Issues with specific current or proposed regulations within these broad categories are listed in the enclosed attachment with a brief description of our concerns. In some cases, particularly with respect to financial reform, proposed regulations have not yet been issued.
We would be happy to discuss any of these issues in further detail with you or your staff or provide you with additional information.

Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to share our views and for your personal interest in identifying regulations that reduce jobs and economic growth while generating little or no benefits.

Attachments (2)

1. http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/toward-smarter-regulation/.
2. Business_Roundtable.Policy_Positions_on_Existing_and_Proposed_Regulations_.pdf

C: The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Minority Member
The Honorable Edolphus Towns
 

Business Roundtable Policy Positions on Existing and Proposed Regulations

Environmental Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled an aggressive Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulatory agenda that, cumulatively, threatens a significant number of electric power plants and industrial boilers. Most of these regulations are scheduled to be finalized over the next two years.

NESHAPS for Utility Boilers: Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for major (and area) sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) that are subject to regulation. Pursuant to a consent decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, EPA is required to issue a proposed rule for the regulation of HAPS emissions from coal and oil-fired utility boilers by March 16, 2011 and to finalize the rule by November 16, 2011. It is anticipated that any final rule will require the installation of costly new control equipment at virtually every existing coal-fired utility boiler. In addition, it is not clear if technology is available to meet the anticipated standards if EPA does not use its authority to sub¬categorize or tailor its regulations depending on coal types. Regardless of the final form of the rule, it is anticipated that significant coal generating capacity will be at risk for closure as a consequence of the rule.

NESHAPS for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers: In two separate rulemaking proceedings, EPA proposed rules in April 2010 that would reduce HAAPS emissions from existing and new industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters located at major sources and reduce HAPS emissions from existing and new industrial, commercial and institutional boilers located at area sources. On December 7, 2010, EPA petitioned the federal court for an extension of the deadline for issuance of a final rule to April 13, 2012. EPA argued that it needed additional time to review over 4800 public comments filed in the rulemaking proceedings. In addition, EPA indicated that the final rules would reflect material changes from the proposed rules. According to an EPA Fact Sheet on the NOPR for major sources, there are approximately 13,555 boiler and process heaters at major sources in the U.S. The Fact Sheet estimates that the total national capital cost for a final major source rule would be approximately $9.5 billion in 2012, and the total national annual cost would be $2.9 billion in 2013. EPA also estimated that for area sources, there are approximately 183,000 boilers at 92,000 facilities. Most of these area sources are owned and operated by small entities. EPA estimates that the total national capital cost for a final area source rule would be approximately $2.5 billion, and the total national annual cost would be $1.0 billion.

Given the number of industrial sources affected and the potential severity of the final rule, this proposed regulation could be extremely costly and disruptive. Moreover, a number of older facilities could be expected to close given the magnitude of the capital and annual operating costs anticipated. Permitting the number of upgrades that will be required under these regulations will present a significant challenge.

Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act: The EPA has finalized regulations under the Clean Air Act requiring major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and permit programs of the Clean Air Act. On December 23rd, 2010, EPA also indicated that it intended to promulgate New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) regulations for major sources. In general, the PSD program requires sources to apply the best available control technology (BACT) to limit emissions of air pollutants, determined on a case-by-case basis, and the NSPS program establishes a “floor” on what this technology can be. At this time, there is no readily available commercial technology to limit GHG emissions. On November 10, 2010, EPA issued BACT guidance for the states to implement. In general, this guidance calls for a reliance on efficiency measures, rather than fuel switching or entirely new, unproven technology to control GHG emissions. EPA has made it clear, however, that through subsequent rulemakings, the universe of affected facilities is likely to expand, thus subjecting more and more facilities to new case-by-case regulatory reviews. EPA is being challenged in court on every significant decision involving this program.

The Clean Air Act was not designed and is ill-suited to regulate a ubiquitous pollutant like CO2. CO2 emissions do not pose a local or even national problem; whatever impact there may be is global. EPA’s current regulations require potentially lengthy BACT case-by-case reviews for new facilities or major modifications of existing facilities, thus further delaying investment in new manufacturing plants. In addition, EPA has made it clear that its current regulations are just the first step in what will be a series of further rulemakings potentially expanding the scope, severity and cost of the program.

Cooling Water Intake Structures: The withdrawal of cooling water from rivers, lakes or oceans by electric power plants or manufacturing facilities may result in adverse environmental impacts on aquatic life. These impacts may be greater at facilities with open-loop, or once-through, cooling water systems, which withdraw water from a source, use it to cool and then discharge it back into the source. Other facilities use closed-loop cooling water systems, in which cooling water is itself cooled, e.g., in cooling towers, and then recycled for further cooling purposes. Approximately 43% of electric power plants in the U.S. with cooling water systems use an open-loop system. On December 3, 2010, the District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement which requires EPA to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the Clean Water Act for existing facilities by March 14, 2011. It also requires EPA to issue final rules by July 27, 2012. If final rules in the rulemaking proceeding require electric power plants and manufacturing facilities with open-loop, or once-through, cooling systems to install closed-loop cooling systems, then the potential retrofit costs could be substantial. The massive cost of retrofits could cause the premature retirement of power plants. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently estimated that the costs of rules could cause 32,500-36,000 MW of capacity to be vulnerable to retirement if EPA requires the conversion of open-loop cooling water systems to closed-loop systems. The premature retirement of that capacity would have implications for the reliability of the electric power grid. Finally, some power plants may simply not have the space required for the installation of cooling towers and other associated equipment.

Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone: Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to issue national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, NOX, CO, sulfur dioxide and lead. EPA is required to issue both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards are requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of the pollutants. On March 27, 2008, EPA, under the Bush Administration, finalized primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone. EPA established a new primary NAAQS for ozone of 0.075 parts-per¬million (ppm) using an eight-hour dialing averaging time. This standard was at variance with the recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee for a standard of 0.060-0.070 ppm. These NAAQs were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. When the Obama Administration assumed office, EPA requested that the D.C. Circuit hold the appeal in abeyance with EPA officials appointed by the Obama Administration reviewed the 2008 standards. In September 2009, EPA Advised the D.C. Circuit that it would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ozone and would propose revised standards. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to revise the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to the level initially proposed by the Advisory Board. In November, 2010, EPA advised the D.C. Circuit that it would issue a final rule by December 31, 2010. On December 8, 2010, EPA requested a continued abeyance from the D.C. Circuit, indicating that it intends to issue a final rule by July 29, 2011. Compliance with the proposed NAAQS for ozone, if finalized, is expected to pose considerable challenges. According to EPA, 253 of the 675 counties in the U.S. with ozone monitoring equipment have not yet achieved compliance with the NAAQS for ozone issued in 1997. One half of the counties will be nonattainment areas under the standard of 0.075 ppm issued in 2008 and over 80% of the counties could be in nonattainment under the standard of 0.060 proposed last January. Nonattainment status requires reasonable further progress toward meeting the standards, which makes permitting new sources of ozone pollution virtually impossible unless offsets or other reductions are found and the lowest achievable emissions rate for a proposed facility is achieved.

Financial Regulatory Reform

There are a number of provisions stemming from the Dodd/Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation that are unnecessary, do not constitute “reform” in any recognizable sense, and are burdensome and costly. Below are examples of regulations stemming from the Dodd/Frank legislation that have negative consequence to the economy and jobs.

Proxy Access: The SEC has created a new federal right to proxy access. This undermines decades of state law, precedent and organic evolution of corporate law. The rules will result in short term focus by boards of directors, turn director elections into political contests, and could have serious consequences for economic growth and job creation. The BRT and the Chamber of Commerce have sued the SEC to vacate the rules and the issue is pending in the courts.

CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure: Section 953(b) of Dodd/Frank requires disclosure of the ratio of CEO compensation to the median of the compensation of all the company's employees. The statute sets forth a very specific calculation and, as such, it is a very difficult and expensive undertaking. It could potentially cause companies to take actions that result in less employment, such as outsourcing, to produce better ratios. Less specificity in the calculation is necessary.

Disclosure of Conflict Minerals: Section 1502 relating to conflict minerals will require any company that uses one of a number of commonly used minerals in the production of not only its products, but also potentially those it has contracted to manufacture, to conduct an inquiry to determine if the minerals came from the Congo, and if it cannot determine that they did not, to engage in a costly due diligence procedure, including an audit.

Reporting of Payments: Section 1504 requires resource extraction issuers to report payments to foreign governments, including taxes, royalties, fees and other material benefits. Such information will be competitively sensitive in many cases and its public disclosure may violate the laws of foreign countries.

Neither Section 1502 or 1504, as well Section 1503 relating to disclosure of mine safety violations to the SEC, have anything to do with the protection of investors. They are costly requirements that have been attached to the federal securities laws to address unrelated concerns. The SEC has no expertise to regulate in this area.

Other corporate governance provisions: Other sections of Dodd-Frank relating to executive compensation, including the advisory vote on compensation (Section 951) and mandatory stringent clawbacks (Section 954), will interfere with the ability of boards of directors to hire, retain and motivate the most qualified senior management teams to produce growth and jobs.

Whistleblower bounty: Pursuant to Section 922, the SEC has proposed rules which provide a substantial financial bounty to company employees who go directly to the SEC and report violations of the securities laws. These rules would circumvent and render ineffective company whistleblower and compliance programs and deprive companies of the ability to promptly address improper activities by their employees.

Derivatives Regulation: It is critical that end users of derivatives --companies that employ derivatives to manage risk, not create it through speculative trading --should have a clear exemption from margin, capital, and clearing requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. We urge the Committee to focus on the dozens of regulations that have been or will be proposed to implement the Act's derivatives title (Title VII), which will unnecessarily burden end-user companies. There are a number of regulations, including proposals imposing margin, capital, and clearing requirements and defining the terms "major swap participant" and "swap dealer", which could cause end-user companies to be subject to bank-like derivatives regulation, when increased transparency combined with regulation of true swap dealers would address any systemic risks caused by derivatives use.

When considering the need for and effects of derivatives regulation on end-users, it is
important to bear in mind the following:

• End-users account for approximately 10% of derivatives use and largely do not invest in derivatives to speculate for profit.
• A BRT study shows that a 3% margin requirement could result in the loss of 100,000 jobs and tie up an average of $269 million per year per company. These results are conservative as they reflect only the imposition of an “initial” margin requirement, though “variation” margin charges could be much higher, tying up more capital and costing more jobs.

Health Care and Retirement Benefits

The following are key regulatory issues that have been raised by Business Roundtable member companies in the area of health and retirement benefits.

ERISA Preemption: It is critically important that ERISA preemption be preserved in health care reform regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). One of the key features of ERISA is the ability of an employer to design a plan to fit the profile/needs of its workforce. The imposition of employer mandates inhibits an employer’s ability to do this and will likely result in cost increases for large, self -funded plans without commensurate benefits to employees.

“Grandfathering”: These rules from the PPACA were too cumbersome and didn’t allow plans to comply with “the early requirements over a period of time.”

“Cadillac Plan” Tax: This new tax in the PPACA will divert resources away from investment in new technology, processes and jobs, and will significantly raise costs, harming global competitiveness. As a result of efforts to avoid the tax, one of the revenue sources that supports health reform will be significantly reduced.

Health IT: The CMS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the Interim Final Rule (IFR) are creating uncertainty and confusion, jeopardizing the goal of the rapid adoption of electronic health records. Without policy changes, innovation will be marginalized and job creation threatened.

RDS: Due to the elimination of the tax-free aspect of Retiree Drug Subsidy (RDS) in the PPACA, employers may be more likely to drop retirees into the open market, where costs to the Federal government (i.e., under Part D of Medicare), could exceed those to the Federal government under RDS.

Limited Plans: PPACA provides the Secretary transitional authority to allow benefit limits up until 2014. We support the “mini-med waiver authority” to allow employers to continue to offer limited benefit plans – to current categories of employees – until 2014 to ensure continued affordable coverage of part-time, seasonal, temporary and full-time employees in a waiting period; and vital services such as maternity coverage – a benefit that is generally not available in the individual market. We believe this waiver authority should be extended beyond 2014.

Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Requirements: Careful consideration should be given to these requirements. They may:

• Increase premiums,
• Reduce competition in the marketplace, and
• Narrow provider choice for consumers.

Premium Increase Reporting: A new federal rate review regime would:

• Threaten carrier solvency leaving consumers and providers with unpaid claims,
• Decrease competition,
• Decrease choice of providers, and
• Add unnecessary administrative burden.

Administration and Reporting:

• The Health Care Reform bill includes a provision that requires more companies to file 1099 tax forms; the cost to modify systems to collect the data and send the additional 1099s will be significant.
• The short amount of time in which plans are required to comply with new ICD10 and 5010 coding requirements imposes an incredible administrative burden that will increase administrative costs significantly.

Retirement Policy Regulations:

• Proposed PBGC regulations under ERISA section 4062(e) would hinder normal business transactions in ways that are not supported by the language or intent of the statute. The rules were intended to apply only when an employer ceases operations at a facility, but the proposed regulations would apply in many cases where no operations were shut down and would expose plan sponsors to potential liability that is disproportionate to the size of a transaction. By placing a significant toll charge on customary and economic business transactions, employers will be limited in their flexibility to redirect capital and efforts into job formation.
• Regulations governing cash balance and other hybrid pension plans, including interpretations of market rate of return standards and conversion requirements, are requiring unnecessary expenditures by employers and are disrupting pension benefit plans, adding costs and diverting resources from job creation.
• Ongoing regulatory projects with respect to pension plan funding should seek to minimize year-to-year volatility and maximize the employer’s ability to predict costs. Without appropriate smoothing of asset values and interest rate swings, volatile funding requirements will intensify the cyclical nature of the U.S. economy --forcing employers to make larger contributions when the economy is at its weakest. This, in turn, would deepen recessions and slow job growth. In contrast, more predictable, steady funding rules provide employers with the certainty they need to hire new employees and to make capital investments.