RED TAPE Act Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act
Impact
If passed, HB572 is set to amend Chapter 6 of Title 5 of the United States Code, explicitly prohibiting agencies from including non-monetized factors in their analyses. The potential implications are multifold, mainly emphasizing a stricter, more quantifiable approach to regulation. Advocates of the bill argue that this will streamline regulatory processes, ensuring compliance is more straightforward and that regulations only introduced will have a direct monetary benefit. However, the emphasis on quantifiability may overlook significant factors like environmental or social costs, which can be challenging to monetize.
Summary
House Bill 572, titled the 'RED TAPE Act', seeks to prohibit the consideration of non-monetized or unquantified factors in regulatory impact analyses and benefit-cost analyses for proposed government rules. The legislation mandates that all federal agencies prioritize tangible, measurable financial benefits in their decision-making processes, thereby aiming to enhance regulatory clarity and efficiency. This would require that governmental regulations yield obvious economic benefits to the public and private sectors, effectively minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens or costs associated with compliance.
Contention
There are notable areas of contention surrounding the bill. Critics argue that the legislation could undermine the flexibility needed to assess critical qualitative factors that are crucial for comprehensive regulatory assessments, such as public health or environmental impacts. Additionally, the provision allowing for judicial review could lead to increased litigation against agencies, altering the regulatory landscape. Proponents maintain that these changes will help eliminate excessive bureaucracy and create a more conducive environment for businesses by ensuring only economically beneficial regulations are implemented.
Article I Regulatory Budget Act This bill requires the establishment of a federal regulatory budget to limit the costs of federal regulations. It also establishes requirements for disclosing the projected costs of federal regulations and procedures for enforcing the regulatory budget.
Regulatory Accountability Act This bill expands and provides statutory authority for notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to require federal agencies to consider (1) whether a rulemaking is required by statute or is within the discretion of the agency, (2) whether existing laws or rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem, and (3) reasonable alternatives to a new rule. For proposed major or high-impact rules that have a specified significant economic impact or adverse effect on the public health or safety, an agency must publish notice of such rulemaking to invite interested parties to propose alternatives and ideas to accomplish the agency's objectives; allow persons interested in high-impact or certain major rules to petition for a public hearing with oral presentation, cross-examination, and the burden of proof on the proponent of the rule; adopt the rule that maximizes net benefits within the scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule, unless the agency explains the costs and benefits that justify adopting an alternative rule and such rule is approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); and publish a framework and metrics for measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the rule. Agencies must notify OIRA with certain information about a proposed rulemaking, including specified discussion and preliminary explanations concerning a major or high-impact rule. Further, OIRA must establish certain rulemaking guidelines. Additionally, the bill (1) revises the scope of judicial review of agency actions, and (2) establishes requirements for agencies issuing guidance.