Overview
Title
To require each agency to repeal 3 existing regulations before issuing a new regulation, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The ERASER Act wants all government departments to get rid of three old rules for every new rule they want to make. Also, if the new rule costs more money, they can only make it if it balances out with the old rules they remove.
Summary AI
The Expediting Reform And Stopping Excess Regulations Act or the ERASER Act requires U.S. government agencies to repeal three existing regulations before they can issue a new one. For major regulations, the cost of the new regulation must not exceed the cost of the repealed regulations. Interpretative rules, policy statements, or procedural rules cannot be counted toward the required repeals. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must study and report to Congress on the number and cost of regulations every five years.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The Expediting Reform And Stopping Excess Regulations Act, known as the "ERASER Act," is a legislative proposal aimed at transforming the regulatory landscape of federal agencies in the United States. Introduced in the Senate, the bill proposes that for every new regulation an agency wishes to implement, it must repeal three existing ones. This measure applies explicitly to rules imposing costs on non-governmental entities or state and local governments, with certain management-related rules being exempt.
General Summary of the Bill
The ERASER Act is designed to limit regulatory expansion by requiring federal agencies to repeal existing regulations when proposing new ones. The bill stipulates that if the rule is considered a "major rule," it not only needs the repeal of more than three existing rules but also that the cost of compliance with the new rule must not exceed that of those repealed. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office is tasked with studying and reporting on the number and economic costs of rules.
Summary of Significant Issues
Key issues surrounding the bill include the practicality and efficacy of requiring the repeal of three existing regulations for each new one. Critics argue this could lead to inefficiency or regulatory gaps, impeding the essential functions of agencies as they scramble to find suitable candidates for repeal. Another concern is the cost-equality requirement for major rules, which may stifle necessary regulatory updates if their immediate costs are higher than the costs of repealed rules, despite their potential long-term benefits.
The procedural aspects of the bill raise issues as well. There is no transparent criteria or public process outlined for the cost certification of new major rules by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which diminishes accountability. Additionally, the exemption for agency management rules from the repeal requirement presents a gap that could be exploited to avoid the rule-cutting provision without due oversight.
Impact on the Public
The direct impact on the public is tied to how effectively the bill can reduce regulatory burdens without compromising public safety and welfare. For consumers and businesses, fewer regulations could mean a decrease in compliance costs, potentially leading to economic benefits or lower prices for goods and services. However, if important protections are repealed indiscriminately, it might result in reduced safety, environmental harm, or lessened consumer protections.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Agencies: The most directly affected stakeholders are federal agencies. They may face challenges in finding enough redundant or outdated regulations to repeal, which could hinder their ability to respond promptly to new and emerging issues.
Businesses and Industries: Certain businesses, particularly those heavily regulated, might see the ERASER Act as a relief, reducing the complexity and cost of complying with numerous regulations. However, industries that rely on certain regulations to maintain fair competition or consumer trust could face disadvantages.
Non-governmental Entities and Local Governments: These groups might experience varied impacts based on the type of regulations repealed. On one hand, fewer regulations could mean reduced administrative burdens but could also transfer more responsibilities and costs to the local and state levels if federal oversight is diminished.
In summary, while the ERASER Act attempts to streamline regulatory frameworks and reduce the burden of excess regulations, it brings challenges that need careful consideration to ensure that public health, safety, and environmental standards are not compromised for the sake of reducing red tape. As the bill progresses through legislative scrutiny, these issues will need to be addressed to balance deregulation with maintaining essential protections.
Issues
The requirement in Section 3 to repeal three existing regulations before issuing a new rule may lead to inefficiency or unintended negative consequences, especially if there aren't enough outdated or redundant rules available for repeal. This could result in regulatory gaps or hinder an agency's ability to implement necessary regulations.
The cost equality requirement for major rules in Section 3(b)(1)(B) might overly restrict the issuance of beneficial regulations if their implementation cost slightly exceeds that of repealed rules, without considering long-term benefits. This could potentially stifle innovation or necessary updates to regulatory frameworks.
The lack of transparency and clarity in the certification process by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as described in Section 3(b)(2), could lead to concerns about accountability and the criteria used for certification not being made publicly available.
Section 3(e)(2) exempts rules related to agency management from the repeal requirement, which might allow significant rules to bypass this requirement without adequate oversight. This could lead to selective application and potential abuse of the exemption.
The lack of specific definitions or criteria for what constitutes a 'major rule' in Section 4 could lead to differing interpretations and inconsistent application, affecting the uniformity and predictability of the regulatory environment.
The text in Section 4 does not specify the methodology or criteria for estimating the 'total estimated economic cost,' which could lead to unreliable or inconsistent information being used in decision-making.
The absence of funding details in Section 4 for the Government Accountability Office to conduct these studies raises potential issues of unfunded mandates, which could affect the thoroughness and quality of the analysis conducted.
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 this Act states its official name as the "Expediting Reform And Stopping Excess Regulations Act," which can also be abbreviated as the "ERASER Act."
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, three terms are defined: “agency” and “rule” refer to their meanings found in a specific section of U.S. law, “major rule” is defined similarly, and “State” includes all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, territories, possessions, and recognized Indian tribes.
3. Repeal of regulations required before issuance of a new rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Under this bill, an agency cannot create a new rule unless it cancels at least three old rules related to the new one, and it cannot introduce a major new rule unless the cost of it is the same or less than those three rules combined. This requirement, however, doesn't apply to rules about agency management, staff, or purchasing.
4. Government Accountability Office study of rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Government Accountability Office is required to conduct a study and report to Congress every five years, starting one year after this Act becomes law. The report will detail the number of rules in effect, the number of major rules in effect, and the total estimated economic cost of these rules.