Bill Overview
Title: Regulatory Accountability Act
Description: This bill expands and provides statutory authority for notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures to require federal agencies to consider (1) whether a rulemaking is required by statute or is within the discretion of the agency, (2) whether existing laws or rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem, and (3) reasonable alternatives to a new rule. For proposed major or high-impact rules that have a specified significant economic impact or adverse effect on the public health or safety, an agency must publish notice of such rulemaking to invite interested parties to propose alternatives and ideas to accomplish the agency's objectives; allow persons interested in high-impact or certain major rules to petition for a public hearing with oral presentation, cross-examination, and the burden of proof on the proponent of the rule; adopt the rule that maximizes net benefits within the scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule, unless the agency explains the costs and benefits that justify adopting an alternative rule and such rule is approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); and publish a framework and metrics for measuring the ongoing effectiveness of the rule. Agencies must notify OIRA with certain information about a proposed rulemaking, including specified discussion and preliminary explanations concerning a major or high-impact rule. Further, OIRA must establish certain rulemaking guidelines. Additionally, the bill (1) revises the scope of judicial review of agency actions, and (2) establishes requirements for agencies issuing guidance.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]
Target Audience
Population: People globally under jurisdictions influenced by US federal regulations
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill affects the procedural aspects of how federal agencies propose and implement regulations, impacting all individuals subject to federal regulations.
- Since federal regulations can impact a wide range of areas including economic policy, public health, and safety, people in industries or resident in areas affected by high-impact federal regulations would be affected.
- Individuals involved in industries heavily regulated at the federal level, such as environmental protection, financial services, transportation, healthcare, and manufacturing, will likely be impacted by changes in regulatory processes.
- The requirement for notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and judicial review means both industry stakeholders and consumer groups will have opportunities to influence federal rulemaking, impacting their interests and wellbeing.
Reasoning
- This policy is particularly impactful on people who are directly involved with or are subject to federal regulations, such as business owners, employees in regulated industries, and consumer advocacy groups.
- I have generated the Cantril Wellbeing Scores based on an understanding that the policy's intent is to improve rulemaking efficiencies and potentially create a more equitable regulatory environment.
- For people in unregulated sectors or those not engaged in federal regulatory processes, the impact is likely low or non-existent.
Simulated Interviews
Oil and Gas Executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could create more predictable regulatory changes, which is beneficial.
- Concerned about initial implementation costs and potential delays during rule evaluations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to clearer guidelines that accommodate tech innovation.
- Improvement in rulemaking process could help navigate regulatory obligations more easily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Automobile Manufacturing Manager (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined rulemaking might reduce compliance costs, helpful for budgeting.
- Constant changes in regulations are the primary concern for long-term planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides more opportunities for public input, which is excellent.
- Concerned that emphasis on economic impact might diminish environmental protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Healthcare Administrator (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cross-agency rulemaking can improve patient safety standards.
- Concerns that the burden of proof in rule justifications may delay necessary healthcare reforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clear and accountable processes might reduce compliance risks for firms.
- Good framework would mitigate erratic regulatory changes affecting financial markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Researcher (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased accountability can ensure better public health standards.
- However, I'm wary of the potential delays in implementing health-focused policies due to procedural nuances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Transportation Network Manager (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy provides more scope for transparency, which is good.
- Regulatory consistency can speed up infrastructure project approvals, reducing bureaucratic delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer Rights Advocate (Miami, Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes for more transparent regulations improving consumer protection.
- Worries about corporate influence in rulemaking processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Journalist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy push for transparency might increase public trust in regulations.
- The journalistic perspective is more opportunities for advocacy and reporting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $315000000 (Low: $262500000, High: $367500000)
Year 3: $330750000 (Low: $275625000, High: $385875000)
Year 5: $363825000 (Low: $303187500, High: $424462500)
Year 10: $442752000 (Low: $369120000, High: $516384000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2400000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact of this legislative act on agency workload and capacity should be carefully monitored, as it involves substantial new procedural requirements.
- The bill's actual effects on streamlining and improving regulation depend heavily on implementation details and the response from federal agencies and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
- There may be indirect costs related to delays in rulemaking as agencies adjust to new requirements and processes.