Overview
Title
To require each agency to evaluate the permitting system of the agency, to consider whether a permit by rule could replace that system, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The "FREE Act" wants government helpers to make getting a special permission (called a permit) faster and easier, so if they take too long or forget to help, people get a "yes" automatically. If those helpers don't do their homework on time, they might have to pay for a lawyer.
Summary AI
H.R. 8784, also known as the “Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act” or the “FREE Act,” requires federal agencies to review their permitting systems and consider replacing them with a "permit by rule" process. This new process aims to reduce delays and costs by setting clear standards for permits and simplifying the approval system. Agencies must report details about their current permitting practices to Congress and propose how these could transition to the permit by rule system. If an application is not addressed within 180 days, it is automatically approved, and agencies are obligated to cover attorney fees for applicants if any required reports are unmet.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as the "Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act" or the "FREE Act," seeks significant reform in the way federal agencies handle their permitting processes. The bill mandates each federal agency to evaluate its current permitting system and consider adopting a "permit by rule" system. This system aims to streamline the permitting process by establishing specific written standards, requiring applicants to certify compliance, and setting deadlines for government action. Overall, the bill aims to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary delays, and minimize costs associated with the federal permitting process.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the key concerns about the bill is the lack of specific time constraints outlined in its current provisions. While the bill acknowledges that the absence of time limits in the existing permitting framework leads to delays, it does not provide a precise solution or timeframe to address this issue effectively. Additionally, the concept of "broad discretion," frequently mentioned in the bill, is not clearly defined. This absence of definition could result in inconsistent enforcement and application across various agencies, potentially creating legal confusion.
Another significant issue is the requirement for detailed and timely reports to Congress, which may inadvertently impose administrative burdens on agencies without ensuring meaningful policy changes. Furthermore, provisions that mandate agencies to pay attorney fees if they miss reporting deadlines may inadvertently prioritize litigation over collaboration.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, the adoption of the "permit by rule" system could lead to faster and more efficient permitting processes. This improvement might result in quicker project approvals, benefiting industries that rely heavily on permits, such as construction and energy. Ideally, it could lead to economic growth and job creation by reducing bureaucratic delays.
However, the risk remains that insufficiently defined compliance standards and the coexistence of old and new permitting systems might lead to confusion and inefficiency. This dual system could make it challenging for applicants to navigate the process effectively, potentially leading to delays and increased costs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: The bill places additional reporting and procedural responsibilities on federal agencies. While this might lead to more transparent and accountable processes, it also risks straining agency resources. Agencies may face administrative burdens due to the need for comprehensive reporting and potential legal costs associated with missed deadlines.
Applicants and Industry: For applicants, the promise of a streamlined process is attractive. However, the lack of clear standards and the possibility of navigating two concurrent systems may cause confusion and increased transaction costs.
Legal and Advocacy Groups: Legal and advocacy groups may view the bill as an opportunity to enhance government accountability but could also perceive it as opening avenues for litigation. The potential for increased legal action may divert agency resources from core functions to dealing with lawsuits.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to simplify and expedite the permitting process, significant issues remain pertaining to its implementation and the practical benefits that can be realized. The overall effectiveness largely depends on how clearly and practically these issues are addressed through legislative oversight and stakeholder collaboration.
Issues
The lack of time constraints on the permitting system in Section 2 may lead to unchecked delays and inefficiencies, raising concerns about government accountability and effective use of resources.
The ambiguous definition and use of 'broad discretion' in Section 2 could lead to inconsistent application and enforcement across agencies, creating legal confusion and potential biases in the permitting process.
Section 3 requires detailed and timely reports to Congress from each agency within 240 days, which could impose administrative burdens without assurance of impactful policy changes, thus questioning the practical benefits of such reporting.
The possibility of agencies having to pay attorney fees if they fail to meet reporting deadlines in Section 3 may divert funds from essential services and encourage litigious behavior rather than cooperative problem-solving.
The provisions in Sections 2 and 3 describing 'permit by rule' lack clear standards and criteria for compliance, potentially leading to misunderstandings, inconsistent applications, and legal loopholes.
The concurrent existence of old and new permitting systems, as discussed in Section 3, could cause confusion and inefficiency, as applicants and agencies may struggle to navigate two separate systems simultaneously.
The optional solicitation of public comment in Section 3 may result in a lack of transparency and reduced public engagement, potentially narrowing the scope of inputs and stakeholder perspectives.
The dense legal language used throughout the bill, particularly in Section 3, could make it difficult for stakeholders who aren't legally trained to fully comprehend their obligations and rights under the new system.
Section 3 allows for a 90-day extension for agencies to submit their reports to Congress, which might lead to significant delays in decision-making processes crucial for effective legislative oversight and public accountability.
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 Act gives it two possible titles: the “Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act” or the “FREE Act”.
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the current permitting system used by agencies often allows broad discretion and lacks time constraints, which can cause delays and increased costs. There is a need for a more efficient process called "permit by rule," which sets clear standards and deadlines, focusing on enforcing compliance rather than delaying approvals.
3. Permitting by rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section outlines requirements for federal agencies to report to Congress on their permitting processes and explore shifting to "permitting by rule" to streamline applications. It sets deadlines for reports, mandates public comment, and allows for legal action if agencies delay. The section also calls for audits, appeals, and fees related to improper permit denials, and requires ongoing congressional oversight and GAO reporting on implementing "permitting by rule."