Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of non-monetized or unqualified factors for regulatory analyses, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 572 is a plan to make sure that when government workers decide on rules, they should only use facts that involve money. If they don't follow this rule, people can say the rule isn't fair and might try to change it.
Summary AI
H.R. 572 seeks to eliminate the use of non-monetary or vague factors in regulatory analyses by government agencies. The bill requires that all regulatory decisions prioritize measurable financial benefits and cost evaluations. Agencies must also publish detailed reports of these analyses in the Federal Register for public transparency. If an agency violates these requirements, affected parties can challenge the rules in court, and those rules could be declared invalid.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act" or the "RED TAPE Act," seeks to reform how federal agencies conduct regulatory analyses. It aims to simplify these analyses by prohibiting the use of non-monetized and unquantified factors, focusing solely on measurable financial impacts. By doing so, the bill mandates that agencies prioritize quantitative financial data over qualitative factors when evaluating new regulations. Additionally, the bill requires transparency by obliging agencies to publish detailed analyses of their actions and methodologies. It also allows legal challenges against any rule that considers non-quantifiable factors, potentially invalidating such regulations.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from this bill. Notably, the prohibition of non-monetized or unquantified factors could result in an incomplete assessment of regulations, omitting crucial qualitative aspects, such as environmental sustainability or public health outcomes, that aren't easily quantified. The focus on immediate and quantifiable monetary benefits might favor short-term profits at the expense of long-term societal well-being.
The bill's provision for transparency is well-intentioned, but there are concerns about the administrative burden it imposes. Publishing complex analyses in the Federal Register could strain agency resources and might not be particularly helpful unless the information provided is accessible and understandable to the general public.
Furthermore, the judicial review provision could lead to an increase in legal challenges, delaying important regulatory actions. Finally, the requirement for the Office of Management and Budget to promptly issue revised guidelines could result in rushed or incomplete guidance due to the broad impact on many regulations.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the RED TAPE Act could create a regulatory environment that prioritizes straightforward economic benefits over broader societal values. While reducing regulatory costs might be perceived as a positive outcome, it could lead to the neglect of critical qualitative factors that contribute to public welfare. For consumers, this may mean fewer protections regarding health, safety, and environmental standards.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Business stakeholders, especially those in industries with significant regulatory compliance costs, might view this bill favorably because it could reduce the regulatory burdens they face. This focus on monetary analysis aligns well with industry interests in streamlining regulations to achieve cost efficiency.
On the other hand, environmental and public health advocates may have concerns. Excluding qualitative factors from regulatory analyses could undermine efforts to address complex issues like climate change and public health risks, which often require consideration of long-term and intangible benefits. Legal professionals could see an uptick in litigation due to the increased possibility of rules being challenged, which might result in prolonged regulatory uncertainty and delay.
Conclusion
The RED TAPE Act proposes significant changes in how federal regulatory analyses are conducted by emphasizing monetary over qualitative assessments. While the intention is to streamline regulation and improve transparency, the potential for important factors to be overlooked poses a risk to comprehensive policy-making. Balancing financial efficiency with the protection of broader societal interests will be crucial to the bill's implementation and its impact on the public and stakeholders. The bill's broad language and ambitious timelines will require careful handling to ensure it achieves its goals without unintended negative consequences.
Issues
The prohibition on using non-monetized or unquantified factors for regulatory analyses (Sections 3 and 613) could lead to incomplete consideration of important qualitative aspects such as environmental and social impacts. This narrow focus might overlook significant factors that cannot easily be translated into monetary terms, potentially resulting in regulations that inadequately address complex societal issues.
The language in Section 2 prioritizes immediately quantifiable monetary benefits, which may disproportionately favor short-term economic gains over long-term societal benefits, such as environmental sustainability and public health improvements. This emphasis may lead to weakened regulations that fail to take a comprehensive view of potential impacts.
Section 3 requires extensive public transparency through the publication of regulatory analyses in the Federal Register, entailing potential administrative burdens. While transparency is crucial, the effectiveness of this provision depends on the accessibility and comprehensibility of the published information to stakeholders, which may not be guaranteed.
The judicial review provision in Section 613 enables any party affected by a rule to challenge it if non-monetized or unquantified factors were considered, risking legal challenges that could delay the implementation of necessary regulations. This could destabilize regulatory frameworks and lead to prolonged uncertainty.
The requirement for the Office of Management and Budget to issue revised guidance within 90 days under Section 3 might be challenging due to the complexity and breadth of regulations affected, potentially leading to rushed or insufficient guidance.
The broad and subjective language in Section 2, such as 'unnecessary regulatory costs or burdens,' lacks clear definitions, which could lead to varying interpretations and inconsistent applications across different agencies and contexts. This ambiguity increases the risk of arbitrary or biased decision-making.
The effective date provision in Section 4 lacks clarity on how the 30-day period after enactment will be tracked, which could lead to discrepancies and confusion during implementation. Clear guidelines are necessary to ensure consistent application of the law from the outset.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill designates the short title of the legislation as the “Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act” or simply the “RED TAPE Act”.
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress emphasizes the importance of government agencies focusing on decisions that offer clear financial benefits that can be measured and seen right away, while also keeping unnecessary regulatory costs or burdens to a minimum.
3. Prohibition on net benefit discounts; consideration of regulatory impact analyses Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment to Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, prohibits agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from using or endorsing any factors that cannot be quantified or monetized when conducting regulatory or benefit-cost analyses for new rules. It also requires agencies to publicly share detailed summaries and methodologies of their analyses for transparency and allows affected parties to challenge rules in court if non-quantifiable factors were improperly considered.
613. Prohibition on use of non-monetized or unqualified factors for regulatory analyses Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits agencies and the Office of Management and Budget from using factors that can't be quantified in monetary terms when analyzing the impacts of regulations. It also requires agencies to publish detailed summaries of their analyses and methods in the Federal Register and allows affected parties to sue if an agency uses such factors, with courts able to invalidate rules found to be in violation.
4. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The changes introduced by section 3 of this Act will begin to apply 30 days after the Act is officially passed.