HB2953, the ALERT Act, would create a new chapter in title 5 of the U.S. Code requiring federal agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) with monthly information about rules they expect to propose or finalize in the coming year. Agencies would have to report the nature of each rule, its legal basis, whether it is subject to cost-benefit analysis, whether an exemption from notice-and-comment procedures is being claimed, the stage of rulemaking, and whether the rule is subject to review under section 610. For rules expected to be finalized after a proposed rule has been issued, agencies would also have to provide an approximate completion schedule, cost estimates in specified dollar ranges, economic-effect estimates including job impacts and unfunded mandates, and information about influential scientific information and peer review.
The bill would also require OIRA to publish this information online within 30 days of receipt and to issue annual Federal Register and internet publications summarizing agency rulemaking activity from the prior year. Those annual reports would include counts and lists of proposed and final rules, whether cost-benefit analyses were conducted, whether agencies claimed procedural exemptions, whether rules were mandated by statute, and whether agencies took deregulatory actions such as repealing, narrowing, or reducing the cost of rules. The bill further requires publication of the docket and regulation identifiers for rules, OMB review information, section 610 reviews, Comptroller General submissions, and congressional resolutions of disapproval.
A key substantive change is that, subject to exceptions, a rule could not take effect until the required rule information has been publicly available on the internet for at least six months. The bill exempts rules issued under the APA’s good-cause exception and allows the President, by executive order, to accelerate effectiveness for emergency, criminal law enforcement, national security, or certain trade-agreement-related rules. The bill also sets staggered effective dates for the reporting, publication, and delayed-effect provisions, with the first agency submission due 30 days after enactment.
The bill’s impact on state laws is indirect; it does not amend state statutes, but it would significantly affect federal administrative procedure and the timing of federal regulations. It would increase disclosure obligations for agencies, expand public access to regulatory planning and analysis, and potentially slow the implementation of many federal rules by imposing a six-month publication period before effectiveness. It would also create a more centralized public record of rulemaking activity, cost estimates, and review processes.
No committee debate or votes are provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to promote transparency and oversight of federal regulation, which would likely appeal to supporters of regulatory accountability and opponents of rapid rulemaking. Potential points of contention include the administrative burden on agencies, the breadth of required disclosures, the treatment of cost-benefit analysis and scientific information, and especially the six-month delay before rules can take effect, which critics may view as obstructing timely regulatory action.
HB2953 would add a new federal reporting and publication regime for agency rulemaking in title 5 of the U.S. Code. It would require monthly agency submissions to OIRA, annual public reporting of rulemaking activity, and a general six-month waiting period before most rules can take effect. The bill does not directly change state law, but it would alter federal administrative procedure, transparency requirements, and the timing of federal regulations that may preempt or affect state and local implementation.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a pro-transparency, pro-oversight approach to regulation, likely appealing to lawmakers concerned about regulatory costs and accountability. At the same time, the delayed-effective-date provision and extensive reporting requirements suggest the bill could draw opposition from those who favor faster agency action or who view the requirements as burdensome.
The main points of contention are likely to be the six-month delay before most rules can take effect, the scope of required monthly and annual disclosures, and the requirement to report cost, job, and scientific-information details for rules. Supporters may argue these provisions improve transparency, public access, and congressional oversight of regulation. Opponents may argue they impose significant administrative burdens, could slow urgent rulemaking, and may interfere with agency flexibility, especially for complex or time-sensitive rules. The exceptions for emergencies, criminal law enforcement, national security, and trade-agreement rules indicate the bill anticipates concerns about overly rigid delays.