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 "SMART Act of 2025" is a plan to make sure important rules work well and aren't too costly by checking on them after they're put into place and by asking people what they think. It also talks about how money will be spent to do these checks, but it doesn't say exactly how much.
Summary AI
The proposed bill, known as the "SMART Act of 2025," seeks to amend title 5 of the United States Code to enhance the effectiveness of major rules by integrating a process for review after the rules are implemented. It mandates that agencies develop frameworks for assessing the impact of new major rules, aiming to ensure they meet their objectives and do not impose unnecessary burdens. The bill also requires public input and allows for exemptions in specific circumstances. Additionally, it outlines the responsibilities of agency heads and the Office of Management and Budget in overseeing the assessment processes.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025" or "SMART Act of 2025," aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code. The bill's primary objective is to enhance the effectiveness of major regulatory rules by mandating a retrospective review process. This applies to rules with significant economic impacts of $100 million or more annually, or those affecting prices, costs, competition, and other critical aspects of society and business. The retrospective review requires agencies to assess how well the rules meet their regulatory objectives and consider whether modifications or alternatives could improve outcomes or reduce burdens.
Significant Issues
Several critical issues emerge from the review of this bill:
Complex Definitions and Exemptions: The term "major rule" encompasses various economic and societal impacts, which might lead to confusion and inconsistent application. Similarly, the criteria for exemptions from review, such as emergencies or routine nature rules, are broad and could lead to selective accountability.
Retrospective Review Process: The necessity for agencies to establish frameworks for assessing major rules involves a multi-layered process that could introduce additional bureaucratic hurdles. The provision permitting up to 10 years for assessment could delay needed reforms or improvements.
Judicial Review Limitations: The bill restricts judicial oversight to procedural compliance without allowing substantive review. This limitation could weaken checks on agency power, making it difficult to address potential inefficiencies or abuses effectively.
Spending Concerns: While the bill authorizes appropriations necessary to implement its provisions, it does not specify funding limits. This raises concerns about fiscal responsibility and potential unchecked government spending.
Lack of Clarity in Legislative Intent: The short title and opening sections provide little information concerning the bill's comprehensive goals or its implications on existing statutes, raising questions about transparency and legislative intent.
Impact on the Public
The broad framework for retrospective reviews has the potential to ensure that regulatory rules are effectively achieving their intended goals, thereby benefiting the public by aligning government actions with contemporary needs. However, the lengthy review timelines and complex assessment criteria could result in delays, during which inefficient or outdated regulations may persist unchecked.
Additionally, the lack of substantive judicial review and exemption criteria could dilute the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. If major rules go without appropriate scrutiny or modification for extended periods, it might lead to continued economic and social impacts that could have otherwise been mitigated.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses and Industry: Specific stakeholders, particularly within industries significantly affected by major rules, might find the retrospective review both a burden and a benefit. Companies may experience delays due to increased bureaucratic requirements while potentially gaining from improved regulations that are better calibrated to economic realities.
Government Agencies: Government agencies tasked with implementing this retrospective assessment might face increased administrative workloads. While this could improve policy effectiveness in the long run, the agencies may initially struggle with resource allocation and meeting deadlines, which could slow down rule promulgation and enforcement.
Legal and Regulatory Experts: Legal professionals might be concerned about the limitations on judicial review, which could constrain effective legal oversight and advocacy related to regulatory rules. This aspect of the bill might lead to discussions on the balance between procedural and substantive checks in legislative processes.
Taxpayers: Without clear spending limits, taxpayers might be concerned with potential fiscal impacts stemming from the bill. The prospect of unchecked appropriations could raise questions about governmental spending priorities and efficiency in pursuing regulatory reform.
In conclusion, while the SMART Act of 2025 seeks to streamline and improve regulatory processes, its complex provisions may introduce additional challenges and fiscal concerns that would need to be addressed to fulfill its intended objectives effectively.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled "SMART Act of 2025" makes several references to financial matters, particularly concerning the economic impact of rules and the appropriation of funds to support the implementation of its provisions.
Economic Impact of Major Rules
A critical financial reference in the bill pertains to the definition of a "major rule." The bill classifies a rule as "major" if it is expected to have an annual economic impact of $100,000,000 or more. This definition indicates that the bill targets regulations with significant financial consequences. It aims to ensure that these rules undergo rigorous assessments to confirm they achieve their intended objectives without imposing excessive burdens on the economy.
Appropriations and Spending
The bill authorizes the appropriation of funds to facilitate the amendments made to title 5. Specifically, it states:
"There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a)."
This broad language indicates that the bill provides for potentially unrestricted spending to implement its requirements. The lack of specific limitations on the appropriations could lead to concerns about unchecked government spending, as noted in the issues section. This raises questions about fiscal responsibility, given that no cap or detailed budgetary constraints are specified.
Issues Related to Financial Aspects
Several issues related to these financial components arise from the bill:
Broad Financial Definition: The definition of a "major rule" covering items with a $100 million economic impact may lead to wide-reaching and complex assessments, potentially complicating efficient implementation and oversight.
Unlimited Appropriations: By authorizing "such sums as may be necessary," the bill does not provide a clear financial boundary, potentially leading to excessive and unbounded government spending. This could undermine fiscal transparency and accountability.
Exemption Criteria: The capability to exempt certain rules from review based on the Administrator's discretion could allow substantial rules to escape financial scrutiny or necessary adjustments, potentially resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources.
The consideration of these financial elements is essential to understand how the bill could impact not only regulatory processes but also government spending and economic oversight overall. By establishing clear financial parameters and accountability measures, the bill could ensure a balanced approach that aligns with its goal of optimizing the effectiveness of major rules.
Issues
The definition and scope of 'major rule' could lead to complex assessments and inconsistent applications if not clarified. The definition involves an annual economic impact of $100 million or more or having significant adverse effects (Section 2). This might cover a large range of regulations, potentially complicating the process unnecessarily.
The process for retrospective review integrates complex layers such as determining if rules achieve their goals and whether changes are needed. The 10-year assessment timeframe could result in delayed benefits or reforms for the public (Section 2(a)(1)(B) and 2(a)(2)).
The exemption criteria for certain rules from the retrospective analysis framework used by the Administrator could result in selective accountability, potentially creating loopholes for significant rules that might need scrutiny (Section 2(a)(4)(C)).
The judicial review provisions limit court oversight to procedural compliance only, which may impede necessary substantive checks on agency regulations, potentially leading to unchecked administrative power (Section 2(a)(7)).
The bill authorizes appropriations without specified limits, potentially leading to unchecked spending. This lack of clarity raises ethical and fiscal responsibility concerns (Section 2(b)).
The short title section lacks any substantive detail, creating ambiguity about the bill's comprehensive goals and potential impacts on existing systems, which might raise concerns about legislative intent and transparency (Section 1).
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 act provides its short title, stating that it may be referred to as the “Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025” or the “SMART Act of 2025”.
2. Incorporating retrospective review into new major rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes how U.S. agencies must review and assess the effectiveness of new major rules, especially those with a large economic impact or significant effects on costs, prices, and other factors. It outlines the frameworks that agencies need to develop for these assessments, sets deadlines for data gathering and evaluation, and specifies the responsibilities of agency heads and the Office of Management and Budget in overseeing this process.
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.