H.R.418 - Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 418, the "Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act," aims to increase accountability in federal agency rulemaking. It mandates that any rule issued under Section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code must be issued and signed by a Senate-confirmed appointee. The bill also requires that the initiation of any rule under the same section be done by a senior appointee.
There is an exception if the agency head determines that compliance would impede public safety or security, and a notification is submitted to the Administrator of OIRA and published in the Federal Register.
The bill also tasks the Administrator of OIRA with providing guidance and monitoring agency compliance with the new requirements.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be to centralize control over agency rulemaking within the hands of political appointees. This could lead to a slowdown in the rulemaking process, as fewer individuals would be authorized to issue and sign rules.
It could also lead to rules that are more aligned with the political priorities of the current administration. The exception for public safety and security could be invoked frequently, potentially undermining the intended accountability.
Finally, the role of OIRA would be strengthened, giving it more influence over agency regulations.
Potential Benefits
- Increased accountability by ensuring that politically appointed officials are directly responsible for agency rules.
- Greater transparency in the rulemaking process due to the requirement for agency heads to publicly justify exemptions.
- Potential for rules that better reflect the priorities of the elected administration.
- Enhanced oversight by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
- May reduce the number of rules issued, focusing agencies on the most important regulations.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for politicization of the rulemaking process, as political appointees may prioritize political considerations over technical expertise.
- Increased bureaucracy and delays in issuing rules due to the requirement for sign-off by Senate-confirmed appointees.
- Risk that the exception for public safety and security could be abused to circumvent the requirements of the Act.
- Reduced flexibility for agencies to respond quickly to emerging issues.
- Could stifle innovation and responsiveness within agencies due to increased layers of approval.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is primarily rooted in Article I, Section 1, which vests legislative powers in Congress. Congress has the power to delegate rulemaking authority to agencies, but also the power to set the terms of that delegation.
The bill does not appear to violate any specific constitutional provision. However, some might argue that it could potentially impinge on the executive branch's ability to faithfully execute the laws (Article II, Section 3) if it unduly restricts the ability of agencies to issue necessary regulations.
Ultimately, the constitutionality would depend on how the law is interpreted and applied in practice.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).