New Rulemaking Bill Requires Senate-Confirmed Sign-Off: Could Slow Down Regulations, Shift Power to Political Appointees

This bill, called the "Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act," changes how federal agencies create regulations. It mandates that any new rule impacting people or businesses outside the government must be signed off by an official who's been confirmed by the Senate. It also requires that the process for creating a new rule has to be kicked off by a "senior appointee" – basically, someone high up in the agency appointed by the President, or a top-level career official.

Red Tape, Remixed

The core change here is who gets the final say on new regulations. Instead of career experts at agencies having the last word, it's now political appointees. This is framed as increasing "accountability," but it could also mean more political influence in what are supposed to be technical, expertise-driven decisions. The bill does include an exception for rules related to public safety or security. If following these new rules would hurt safety or security, the agency head can skip them, but they have to notify the Administrator of OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and publish it in the Federal Register.

Real-World Rollout: Slower and More Political?

Imagine a scenario where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to update regulations on industrial emissions based on new scientific findings. Under this bill, that process must be initiated by a senior appointee, and the final rule must be signed by a Senate-confirmed official (Sec. 2(a)). This could slow things down considerably, especially if there are delays in Senate confirmations (which, let's be real, happens). It also means that a political appointee, who might have different priorities than the agency's career scientists, has the ultimate authority.

Or consider a workplace safety rule proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). If a new hazard emerges in, say, construction or manufacturing, OSHA might want to quickly issue a rule to protect workers. This bill adds extra steps. Even with the "public safety" exception (Sec. 2(a)), the need to notify OIRA and publish in the Federal Register adds time and potential for political interference.

The Big Picture: Gridlock and Exemptions

This bill fits into a broader trend of increasing scrutiny and control over agency rulemaking. While accountability sounds good, the practical effect here could be regulatory gridlock. Agencies might be less able to respond quickly to emerging issues, whether it's a new health threat, a financial risk, or an environmental concern. The "public safety or security" exception (Sec. 2(a)) could become a loophole, potentially allowing agencies to bypass the new requirements if they claim a broad enough connection to those concerns. The bill also tasks OIRA with monitoring compliance (Sec. 2(b)), adding another layer of oversight.

Ultimately this bill shifts the balance of power in the regulatory process. It gives more control to political appointees and potentially slows down the ability of agencies to create and update rules that impact everything from consumer safety to environmental protection. While it's presented as enhancing accountability, it's worth considering whether it might actually make agencies less responsive and more susceptible to political pressure.