HR3525-119

What This Bill Does

The Regulatory Accountability Act amends title 5. It defines guidance, major guidance, major rule, OIRA, and the OIRA Administrator. Major rules include rules likely to have a $100 million annual economic effect, major cost or price increases, significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or U.S. enterprise competitiveness, or novel legal or policy issues. The bill rewrites APA section 553 so agencies must consider legal authority, the nature and significance of the problem, whether existing federal law created or contributed to the problem, reasonable alternatives, performance objectives, economic incentives, disclosure requirements, and for major rules quantified and qualitative costs, benefits, risks, countervailing risks, and cumulative impacts. It changes judicial review by allowing remand without vacatur when appropriate, requiring courts to review the whole record and apply prejudicial-error rules, precluding judicial review of OIRA Administrator actions or inaction under most APA rulemaking provisions, limiting review of noninterpretive guidance, requiring courts to decide questions of law de novo with due regard for agency views, and reducing automatic deference to an agency's interpretation of its own rule by looking to thoroughness, reasoning, and consistency. It adds a substantial-evidence definition based on relevant evidence and quality in the whole record. The bill does not apply the section 553, 701, or 706 amendments to rulemakings pending or completed at enactment, does not alter copyright exclusive rights, and makes many conforming amendments across environmental, consumer, labor, communications, finance, and other statutes.

Who Benefits and How

Regulated manufacturers benefit from more required cost-benefit analysis, alternative analysis, and judicial scrutiny before major rules take effect. Small businesses benefit if agencies must consider lower-burden alternatives such as performance objectives, incentives, or disclosure rather than mandates. State governments benefit when agencies must account for major cost increases affecting state, local, and Tribal governments. OIRA staff benefit from expanded central-review authority insulated from most judicial review.

Who Bears the Burden and How

Federal regulatory agencies must prepare deeper rulemaking records, analyze alternatives, quantify costs and benefits, and defend legal authority. Public health and safety advocates may face slower or harder-to-defend rules when major-rule procedures expand. Federal courts must apply revised review standards, de novo legal review, and new remand options. Regulatory beneficiaries may wait longer for protections because the Act adds procedural steps and litigation hooks.

Key Provisions

• Adds definitions for guidance, major guidance, major rule, OIRA, and the OIRA Administrator.
• Requires agencies to analyze legal authority, problems, existing-law causes, alternatives, costs, benefits, risks, and cumulative impacts.
• Requires consideration of performance objectives, economic incentives, disclosure, and other nonmandate alternatives.
• Changes judicial review by allowing remand without vacatur and requiring de novo legal review with due regard for agency views.
• Precludes judicial review of most OIRA Administrator actions or inaction under the rulemaking subchapter.
• Adds a substantial-evidence definition and broad conforming amendments while excluding pending or completed rulemakings.