Overview
Title
To amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain modifications to how agencies conduct periodic reviews of agency rules, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024 wants U.S. government agencies to check their rules regularly, asking people what they think and making sure the rules aren't too hard or costly to follow. It helps ensure the rules stay good and fair for everyone.
Summary AI
H.R. 9085, also known as the “Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024,” proposes changes to how U.S. government agencies review their rules under title 5 of the United States Code. The bill requires agencies to actively seek public comments on whether existing final rules should remain in place and to provide explanations for any delays in conducting these reviews. It also mandates that agencies include detailed analyses of the compliance costs and paperwork associated with each rule. Additionally, the bill calls for agencies to prepare both qualitative and quantitative summaries of public comments before conducting a review.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024" proposes amendments to title 5 of the United States Code, which governs government agency operations. Specifically, it seeks to modify how these agencies conduct periodic reviews of their rules. The main goals are to ensure that agencies solicit public comments about whether existing rules should remain effective, provide explanations for any delays in their reviews, and incorporate economic analyses of rule impacts. Agencies are also required to account for compliance costs and paperwork demands tied to each rule.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the proposed amendments:
Lack of Specificity in Public Comments: Agencies are now required to solicit public comments about rule effectiveness, but the bill does not specify how these comments should be gathered or how long the comment period should last. This lack of direction could lead to inconsistent practices across different agencies.
Economic Analysis Unclear: While the bill requires an economic analysis of the rules, it fails to detail the necessary factors or methodology for such analysis, potentially leading to varied and unreliable outcomes.
Undefined Summaries: The requirement for a "qualitative and quantitative summary" of public comments is not well-defined, which may lead to different interpretations by agencies, affecting the transparency and accuracy of evaluations.
Compliance Cost Measurement: The bill demands considerations of compliance costs and paperwork but does not standardize how these are measured, possibly resulting in inconsistent assessments.
Review Timeline Ambiguity: There's no set deadline for completing summaries of public comments, which could significantly delay the review process, diminishing its potential effectiveness.
Adjusted Review Extensions: The new limit for extending the review process has been reduced to one year from up to five. While this may prevent prolonged review delays, it could lead to frequent reassessments, potentially causing instability in rule enforcement.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill signifies a move towards increased transparency and accountability in how agency rules are maintained. By mandating public input, it offers individuals and organizations a chance to influence rule retention, possibly leading to regulations that better reflect public needs and priorities.
Potential Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Agencies: Agencies will face new obligations for collecting and analyzing public input, potentially necessitating additional resources or restructuring of the review process. The need for economic analyses and detailed summaries may increase the operational workload.
Businesses and Organizations: For businesses, particularly those bound by federal regulations, the bill could mean enhanced opportunities to voice concerns about compliance burdens. However, they might also face uncertainty due to more frequent rule reassessments, impacting long-term planning.
Economic Analysts: The requirement for economic analysis in reviewing rules could create demand for expertise in this area, leading to new opportunities for professionals in economic and policy analysis fields.
Overall, while the bill aims to improve agency accountability and rule relevance through greater public involvement and thorough analysis, several areas need more precise direction to ensure consistent application and avoid potential operational bottlenecks.
Issues
The amendment to Section 610 of title 5 introduces a 'solicitation of public comments' on whether each final rule should remain in effect (Section 2, subsection (a)(A)(ii)). However, it lacks specificity on how these comments should be gathered or the duration for which comments will be accepted, potentially resulting in inconsistent implementation across different agencies.
The bill mandates an 'economic analysis' of rules as part of the review process (Section 2, subsection (c)(A)(ii)), but does not detail what factors should be included in the analysis or the methodology, which could lead to varied interpretations that might affect the reliability of such analyses.
The term 'qualitative and quantitative summary' in Section 2, subsection (c)(B) is not defined, potentially leading to inconsistency in how different agencies interpret and apply this requirement, which may affect the overall evaluation process's transparency and accuracy.
The amendment describes the inclusion of the cost of compliance and the number of paperwork hours required by the rule (Section 2, subsection (b)(6)). However, it does not specify how these costs are to be measured or standardized across agencies, which could affect the consistency of compliance assessments.
There is no clear timeline or deadline specified for when the summaries of public comments must be completed under Section 2, subsection (c)(B). This absence of a timeline could lead to significant delays in the review process, undermining its effectiveness.
The amended legislation allows for an extension of the review process by not more than one year (Section 2, subsection (a)(B)(ii)), which changes the previous structure that permitted extensions of up to five years. While this limits potential delays, it might lead to frequent, potentially disruptive reassessments, impacting rule stability.
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 specifies its short title, stating that it can be referred to as the “Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024.”
2. Changes to periodic review of rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The changes to Section 610 of Title 5 of the United States Code require that government agencies seek public comments on whether rules should stay in place, provide explanations for any delays in rule reviews, and consider the costs and paperwork involved. Agencies must also create summaries and economic analyses of rule impacts before conducting a review.