Ensuring a Competitive Regulatory Environment in North America

  1. Summary – Government Over-regulation
  2. High Regulatory Costs Burden Electronics Companies
  3. Address Government Over-regulation
  4. IPC Suggests Congressional Oversight on Three Burdensome Regulations
  5. IPC a Part of Joint Industry Letter to Congress Urging Improved Regulatory Process
  6. U.S. - Canada Regulatory Cooperation
  7. Take action – Contact congress urging their support to address government over-regulation
Government over-regulation negatively impacts electronics companies’ ability to compete in a global marketplace. Burdensome regulations are impeding electronics companies’ competitiveness by imposing costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens. A 2011 Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) report states that U.S. federal regulatory compliance costs in 2008 were over $1.75 trillion. This number means that the cost of federal regulations increased by $43 billion (or three percent) between 2004 and 2008 after adjusting for inflation. The significant time and money required by companies to comply with the ever-growing number of regulations impair competitiveness. Many U.S. industries are encouraging Congress to address government over-regulation by conducting more Congressional oversight.

High Regulatory Costs Burden Electronics Companies

The high costs of complying with an ever-changing stream of federal requirements burden companies in the electronics industry. Facts and figures from both independent researchers and Congress make clear the high financial burden on companies. In a report, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms by experts Crain & Crain, the average 2008 annual regulatory costs per employee in the U.S. was $7,775 for large businesses (> 500 employees) and $7,454 for medium businesses (20-499 employees). A Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Report, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America’s Manufacturing Base (September 2010) states that EPA regulations put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk and harm America’s manufacturing base.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed conflict minerals regulation will result in companies spending a significant amount of money to comply with the burdensome requirements. Costly government regulations encumber the electronics industry from conducting business.

The federal government continues to promulgate new regulations on a daily basis. In 2010 alone, the government had nearly 4,000 regulatory actions under development by federal regulatory agencies. In terms of high numbers of issuing new or revised regulations, the EPA and Commerce Department are the most egregious government agencies. In 2010 alone, the EPA had 331 new or revised rules and the Commerce Department had 300 new or revised rules. These numbers reflect nearly one regulation promulgated per day per agency.

Back to top

Address Government Over-Regulation

IPC encourages members of Congress to take a more active role in addressing government over-regulation. One way that Congress could address government over-regulation is with more Congressional oversight that will result in preventing new costly regulations. IPC members are encouraged to urge their legislators to become co-sponsors of the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011. (House Bill 10/ Senate Bill 299). This bill, also called the REINS Act, would require executive agencies to submit major rulemaking proposals to Congress for review prior to implementation.  To support electronics companies Congress should work for manufacturers by providing oversight on government regulations.

View a one-page document on addressing government over-regulation (.pdf)

Back to top

IPC Suggests Congressional Oversight on Three Burdensome Regulations

On January 7, 2011, IPC sent a letter to the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding burdensome regulations in need of Congressional oversight. The letter highlighted three regulations that have or will have a significant either impact on electronics manufacturers: the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed modifications to the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Update Reporting rule, the EPA's re-opening of the Definition of Solid Waste rule and the Security and Exchange Commission's proposed regulations on conflict minerals.

The letter was sent in response to Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-CA-49) request for IPC's assistance in identifying existing regulations that have negatively impacted job growth within our industry. Rep. Issa also invited IPC to name proposed regulations, which if finalized, would negatively impact job growth. Our letter to Chairman Issa details three regulations that will impose costly and unnecessary regulatory requirements on U.S. electronics manufacturers and therefore deserve Congressional oversight.

View the letter from IPC to Rep. Issa, Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Back to top

IPC a part of joint industry letter to Congress urging improved regulatory process

IPC joined forces with over 60 industry groups in a joint letter to the House Small Business Committee expressing support for H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. The legislation improves the regulatory process by strengthening agency analysis of a rule’s impact on small businesses.

View the letter from IPC and industry groups to the House Small Business Committee (.pdf)

Back to top

U.S. - Canada Regulatory Cooperation

Eliminating unnecessary duplication, inconsistencies and inefficiencies in regulations between Canada and the United States will aid in ensuring a competitive regulatory environment in North America. IPC and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association delivered a joint letter to the U.S. and Canadian governments urging greater regulatory cooperation in the area of chemicals management.

View the joint letter from IPC and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association (.pdf)

Back to top