Overview
Title
To require each agency to evaluate the permitting system of the agency, to consider whether permitting by rule could replace that system, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill wants to make it easier and faster for government agencies to approve permits by using simpler rules and quicker deadlines, just like having a faster way to say "yes" or "no" when you ask for permission to do something fun, like play a new game. But they also have to check that this faster way is fair and works properly.
Summary AI
S. 238, known as the "Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act" or the "FREE Act," aims to streamline the federal permitting system. The bill requires federal agencies to evaluate their current permitting processes and consider replacing them with a system called "permitting by rule," which would simplify applications and set specific deadlines for agency responses. It mandates agencies to report to Congress on whether this new system can replace the existing process and outlines steps for implementing the system if feasible. Additionally, the bill includes mechanisms for public input, potential penalties for agency delays, and oversight by the Comptroller General to ensure compliance and progress.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The "Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act," or the "FREE Act" (S. 238), is a legislative proposal aimed at reforming the permitting systems used by federal agencies in the United States. Introduced in the Senate, the bill seeks to require each federal agency to evaluate its current permitting processes and consider whether these could be replaced or supplemented by a "permitting by rule" framework. This approach is designed to streamline the permitting process by setting specific standards that, if met by applicants, can lead to automatic approval of permits within a stipulated timeframe, thus reducing bureaucratic delays.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise with the proposed changes in the permitting system:
Administrative Burden: The bill mandates comprehensive reporting by agencies to Congress and the Comptroller General about existing permitting practices. Such an extensive requirement could impose significant administrative burdens and expenses on agencies, particularly if transitioning to "permitting by rule" is deemed inappropriate for certain types of permits.
Potential Delays: The bill allows for a 90-day extension for agencies to submit their reports without specifying strict criteria for such extensions. This flexibility might result in unjustified delays in implementing the new permitting procedures.
Discretion and Transparency: The current discretion agencies have in permitting decisions may continue to be seen as broad and undefined, leading to potential inconsistencies. Without checks and balances, this could undermine transparency and accountability in the permitting process.
Financial Implications: The financial burden on agencies could increase due to the stipulation of paying attorney fees and costs if courts rule against them or if they fail to meet deadlines. This provision might deter agencies from making necessary reforms due to budgetary concerns.
Ambiguities in Terms: The bill uses phrases such as "near unanimously" and "substantive standard" without clear definitions, potentially leading to misunderstandings and inconsistent application.
Dual Systems: Allowing agencies to use both the existing permitting system and the new "permitting by rule" could create procedural inefficiencies and administrative confusion.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill promises to potentially speed up the permitting process, thereby reducing delays that might affect projects dependent on timely approvals. However, the cost implications for federal agencies might indirectly affect public services if budgets are stretched thin.
Impact on Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: Agencies might face significant administrative and financial pressures. The requirement to submit detailed reports and potentially handle increased litigation due to the appeal provisions could lead to resource-strained operations.
Applicants and Industries: Businesses and individuals seeking permits could benefit from faster and more predictable processes, especially in industries where time-sensitive permits are crucial. However, they might also face complexity due to dual systems and the need for compliance with possibly ambiguous standards.
Legal and Advocacy Groups: These stakeholders may find increased opportunities for advocacy and legal challenges, especially concerning transparency and fairness in agency discretion.
Overall, while the FREE Act aims to make permitting processes more efficient, its execution could present multiple challenges unless mechanisms are established to address administrative burdens, financial implications, and potential ambiguities in its implementation.
Issues
The requirement for agencies to submit comprehensive reports to Congress and the Comptroller General (Section 3) may lead to significant administrative burden and financial expense. This could divert resources away from other critical agency functions, particularly if certain permit types are not appropriate for 'permitting by rule'.
The lack of specific criteria for granting a 90-day extension for report submission (Section 3) could lead to unwarranted delays in transitioning to 'permitting by rule', affecting the timeliness and effectiveness of the new permitting process.
Language surrounding the 'broad discretion' of agencies (Section 2) and the absence of defined limits or checks on this discretion could result in subjective and inconsistent application of permitting rules, which may undermine transparency and accountability.
The allowance for attorney fees and costs if a report is delayed or a court finds against the agency (Sections 3 and 3a) could impose significant financial burdens on agencies, impacting operational budgets and potentially creating disincentives for agencies to reform permitting processes.
The term "near unanimously" in the findings (Section 2) is vague and lacks quantification, which might mislead stakeholders about the level of agency consensus on the current permitting systems.
The concurrent use of existing permitting systems and 'permitting by rule' (Section 3d) raises concerns about possible duplication of processes, inefficiencies, and administrative confusion.
The broad and undefined nature of the term 'substantive standard' (Section 3b) could lead to ambiguity and variability in permit evaluations, affecting fair and consistent compliance by applicants.
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
Section 1 of the Act specifies the short title of the legislation, which can be called the “Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act” or simply the “FREE Act.”
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has identified several issues with the current permitting system, noting excessive discretion and lack of time constraints often lead to delays and high costs for both the government and applicants. To address these issues, Congress suggests a "permit by rule" process that includes clear written standards and streamlined approval to make obtaining permits faster and more efficient while still ensuring compliance and protection of important interests.
3. Permitting by rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines a process where federal agencies must report to Congress about their permit systems and consider replacing them with a "permitting by rule" approach. Agencies have to publish specific criteria for approving permits and allow applications to be approved automatically if not disapproved within 180 days. It also establishes a system for public comment, possible audits, and allows applicants to appeal disapprovals in court.