Overview
Title
To amend title 5, United States Code, to improve the effectiveness of major rules in accomplishing their regulatory objectives by promoting retrospective review, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that big rules made by the government are really working well by checking them regularly. It tells the people in charge to make a plan to look at these rules, see if they’re helping, and let everyone know what they find out.
Summary AI
The S. 4264 bill aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code to ensure that major regulatory rules are effective in meeting their goals by requiring regular reviews after they are implemented. It mandates that agencies create a plan to evaluate these rules, including analyzing their benefits and costs, to see if they are working as intended or need changes. Agencies must collect data, involve the public, and publish their findings. The bill also outlines the responsibilities of agency heads and provides guidance and oversight measures to be conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, known as the "Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2024" or the "SMART Act of 2024," aims to enhance the effectiveness of major regulatory rules in achieving their intended goals. It does this by mandating federal agencies to integrate retrospective reviews into their regulatory processes. Retrospective review is an approach in which agencies periodically assess and evaluate the impact of major rules after they have been implemented. The legislation outlines procedures for developing frameworks to measure a rule’s effectiveness and requires regular assessments to determine whether the rules are effective, need adjustments, or should be replaced by better alternatives.
General Summary
The SMART Act of 2024 seeks to modify title 5 of the United States Code by requiring agencies to formulate a framework for evaluating major rules. This framework is to be included alongside any proposed or final major rule that is expected to have significant economic implications. A "major rule" is characterized by substantial economic impacts, increased costs, or adverse effects on various sectors. Agencies are tasked with determining and analyzing the societal benefits, costs, and quantitative outcomes of these rules. This act aims to ensure ongoing public input and provides a structured time frame for such assessments, generally not exceeding ten years.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue with the bill is the lack of a specific appropriation limit, which authorizes spending "such sums as may be necessary." This lack of financial specificity could lead to potential wasteful spending without clear budgetary constraints. Another concern is the extensive exceptions detailed in the bill, allowing numerous major rules to evade retrospective review. This could undermine the bill's intention by permitting certain rules to avoid accountability assessments. Furthermore, the bill restricts judicial review to procedural compliance, not allowing for the in-depth evaluation of the frameworks or the agency's substantive actions, which may pose challenges to ensuring comprehensive accountability.
The complexity of the bill's provisions, articulated in dense and lengthy sentences, may also make it challenging for the general public to understand the full extent of the bill's implications. Additionally, the catchy title "SMART Act of 2024" fails to immediately convey the bill's detailed objectives and scope, potentially causing confusion among stakeholders regarding its intended impacts.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the public at large, the SMART Act of 2024 is designed to enhance government transparency and accountability by continuously evaluating the necessity and effectiveness of major regulations. Ideally, this could lead to improved regulatory outcomes that better achieve intended objectives without unnecessary costs. However, due to the potential for increased administrative burdens on federal agencies, there could be delays in rulemaking and implementation, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
Specific stakeholders such as businesses, particularly those heavily impacted by significant regulations across economic, environmental, or health domains, may experience both positive and negative impacts. Positively, the act might result in more effective and streamlined regulatory frameworks, reducing undue burdens and fostering an environment conducive to innovation and competition. On the downside, the resource-intensive nature of the retrospective reviews could strain agency resources, possibly leading to slower regulatory processes or increased operational costs, which could trickle down to affected industries.
In summary, while the SMART Act of 2024 aims to establish a more accountable and effective framework for evaluating major rules, its potential challenges, including procedural limitations and financial ambiguities, need careful consideration to maximize its benefits and mitigate any adverse outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 4264 introduces amendments to the United States Code to ensure major rules are effective and undergo retrospective reviews. It includes financial references in terms of authorizations for appropriations as well as definitions that involve economic impacts.
Financial References in the Bill
The bill contains an essential financial reference stating that there are authorized to be appropriated "such sums as may be necessary" to carry out its amendments. This clause aims to ensure that sufficient resources are available to implement the bill's requirements effectively.
Issues Related to Financial References
One of the major issues with this financial reference is the absence of a defined cap on appropriations. The bill allows for "such sums as may be necessary," which could potentially lead to excessive or wasteful spending. Without specifying limits or conditions, there is a risk that government resources could be stretched or misappropriated, especially given the potential scale of implementing comprehensive evaluations and reviews as mandated by the bill.
In Section 2 of the bill, a significant portion is dedicated to describing the requirements for agencies to assess and review major rules. Although these reviews are crucial for ensuring the rules are effective and efficient, they impose substantial administrative and financial burdens on agencies. If resources are not carefully managed due to the broad authorization stated, these burdens could lead to inefficiencies or delays.
Additionally, while the bill ensures retrospective reviews, some major rules are exempt from these reviews, as outlined in Section 2, paragraph (6)(A). This exemption potentially undermines the intent of the bill, as it could allow certain rules to bypass necessary scrutiny and improvement—an aspect that could affect financial accountability negatively.
In conclusion, while the bill appropriately allocates funds to ensure the effectiveness of major rules, the absence of a detailed appropriation cap could result in financial mismanagement. It is crucial for further discussions around the bill to address these financial implications and ensure robust fiscal oversight to maximize the benefits of the proposed regulatory reviews.
Issues
The lack of specification on appropriation limits in Section 2 could lead to potential wasteful spending as it authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' without a clear cap.
The exceptions outlined in Section 2, paragraph (6)(A) allow many major rules to circumvent retrospective reviews, potentially undermining the bill's intention of ensuring accountability and effectiveness.
Section 2 limits judicial review strictly to procedural compliance, not allowing for substantive review. This could hinder accountability, as agencies may comply procedurally without adequately addressing rule effectiveness.
The section on incorporating retrospective review (Section 2) imposes significant administrative burdens on agencies. This could lead to inefficiencies or delays, detracting from the bill's primary objectives.
The complexity of language and long sentence structures in Section 2 might make it difficult for stakeholders and the general public to fully understand the implications of the bill.
The bill's short title in Section 1, 'SMART Act of 2024', is catchy but fails to convey the specific objectives or scope, potentially confusing stakeholders about its intended impact.
The bill lacks context or clarity on how the short title 'SMART Act of 2024' will affect stakeholders or what specific requirements it includes.
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 states the official name of the legislation, which can be called the “Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2024” or simply the “SMART Act of 2024”.
2. Incorporating retrospective review into new major rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details changes to how major rules are reviewed by federal agencies. It requires agencies to create a plan to evaluate major rules, considering their economic impact and effectiveness, and to regularly assess whether these rules are needed, could be improved, or if there are better alternatives.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— (1) in section 551— (A) in paragraph (13), by striking “and” at the end; (B) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(15) ‘Administrator’ means the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget established under section 3503 of title 44 and any successor to that office; and “(16) ‘major rule’ means any rule that the Administrator finds has resulted in or is likely to result in— “(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; “(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or “(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.”; and (2) in section 553, by adding at the end the following: “(f) Major rule frameworks.