Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of non-monetized or unqualified factors for regulatory analyses, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The RED TAPE Act is like a rule that says government helpers have to count only things that can be turned into numbers, like money, when they decide if a new rule is good or bad. They also have to tell everyone about their decisions in a clear way, and people can ask a judge to check if the rules don't follow this counting rule.
Summary AI
S. 148, known as the "Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act" or the "RED TAPE Act," aims to change how regulatory analyses are conducted by government agencies. It prohibits the use of non-monetized or unquantified factors in regulatory impact and benefit-cost analyses, mandating that only measurable, monetary benefits be considered. Additionally, it requires agencies to publish detailed summaries and analyses of these impacts in the Federal Register for public transparency. The bill allows affected parties to challenge regulations in court if they believe non-monetized or unquantified factors were improperly used.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
To prohibit the use of non-monetized or unqualified factors for regulatory analyses, and for other purposes, the bill known as the "Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act” or the “RED TAPE Act" aims to reshape how federal agencies conduct their regulatory analyses. The legislation suggests focusing solely on factors that can be directly quantified in monetary terms when drafting and reviewing regulations. It calls for transparency in methodologies and analysis by requiring detailed publications and opens the door for legal challenges if non-monetized factors are used inappropriately.
General Summary of the Bill
The RED TAPE Act seeks to streamline and refine regulatory processes by mandating that government agencies consider only measurable, monetary factors in their rule-making efforts. It prohibits the use of qualitative or non-monetized elements in these evaluations. Additionally, the bill requires agencies to provide clear documentation and rationale for their analyses, fostering public transparency. Agencies are also at risk of judicial review and possible nullification of rules if they fail to comply with the mandated provisions.
Summary of Significant Issues
This legislation raises several critical issues. One of the prominent concerns is the prohibition on considering qualitative factors, which can lead to an overly narrow evaluation of regulatory impacts. Complex issues like environmental and social benefits often possess aspects that are challenging to quantify in purely monetary terms but are nonetheless significant. Additionally, the emphasis on immediate monetary benefits may eclipse long-term gains which might hold substantial societal value.
There is a burden of transparency imposed on agencies, requiring them to publish comprehensive analyses. While aimed at building public trust and accountability, this could lead to increased administrative costs and delays, straining agency resources. The allowance for judicial review creates a potential pathway for increased litigation, which could disrupt the stability of regulations and challenge their consistency and reliability over time.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill could lead to rules that are more straightforward and financially focused, potentially reducing unnecessary regulatory expenses. However, this narrow focus might exclude the consideration of vital social and environmental impacts, which are not easily convertible into monetary terms. Such omittance may negatively affect policy areas that require a more nuanced understanding of their broader effects on society.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government agencies might face additional operational challenges under this legislation. The constraints on using non-monetized factors could oversimplify complex policymaking and hamper their ability to address multifaceted issues adequately. They may also experience heightened administrative and legal burdens due to the requirements for documentation and the risk of increased litigation.
Conversely, businesses might favor this approach as it could streamline compliance and reduce ambiguity in rule-making. By focusing on financial impacts, businesses may find it easier to predict regulatory costs and make investment decisions. However, industries that benefit from non-monetary considerations — such as environmental organizations or social enterprises — might perceive this legislation as sidelining critical qualitative factors necessary for their causes.
In conclusion, while the RED TAPE Act promises to introduce clarity and financial rigor into regulatory processes, it also poses significant questions about the potential exclusion of critical non-monetary considerations and the increased procedural burdens on regulatory agencies. The legislation's impact will likely depend on how these factors are navigated and adjusted in practice.
Issues
The prohibition on considering non-monetized or unquantified factors in Section 3 and Section 613 might lead to overly simplistic evaluations, potentially neglecting important qualitative impacts and causing misguided regulatory decisions, which could be significant for agencies and the public in understanding broader impacts of regulations.
The emphasis on immediately quantifiable monetary benefits in Section 2 could prioritize short-term gains over long-term benefits, such as environmental or social factors, leading to a lack of consideration for harder-to-quantify impacts, which might be of concern to public welfare.
The requirement for public transparency and detailed publication as stipulated in Section 613 may impose additional administrative burdens on agencies, potentially slowing down the rule-making process, and could be controversial in terms of government efficiency and costs.
The directive in Section 3 for the Office of Management and Budget to issue revised guidance within 90 days might be too short a timeframe for comprehensive and well-considered guidance, potentially leading to rushed and incomplete directives, which could impact the quality of policy implementation.
The allowance for judicial review and rule invalidation in Section 613 could significantly increase litigation, creating uncertainty regarding the stability of regulations, and may have broad legal and financial implications, possibly hindering regulatory consistency and reliability.
The potential subjectivity in terms like 'unnecessary regulatory costs or burdens' mentioned in Section 2 may lead to varying interpretations, legal challenges, and ambiguity in implementation, which could affect both agencies and stakeholders in understanding and applying the regulations.
The amendment mentioned in Section 4 concerning the table of sections may be insufficiently detailed to guide agencies effectively without additional context or examples, potentially leading to implementation challenges and confusion among regulatory bodies.
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 bill introduces a rule that prohibits federal agencies from using non-monetized or unquantified factors in their regulatory analyses, requiring them to rely only on measurable criteria. It mandates public transparency by compelling agencies to publish detailed summaries of their analyses and methodologies, while also allowing affected parties to challenge non-compliant rules in court, potentially invalidating those rules.
613. Prohibition on use of non-monetized or unqualified factors for regulatory analyses Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
An agency is not allowed to use any factors that can't be measured in money when they analyze the impact of new rules. The Office of Management and Budget also cannot approve or accept these unmeasurable factors in analyses. Additionally, agencies must publish detailed summaries of their analyses for public review, and individuals can sue if a rule was made using these prohibited factors.
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.