Loading the bill
The review, publication and petition provisions add accountability, but the automatic nonapplication and expiration provisions can remove substantive regulatory protections because an agency misses procedural duties. Those support bounded private-benefit and oversight-loss concerns. Publication, judicial review and a reinstatement process are substantial safeguards; no corrupt motive or realized harm is established.
Reviewed by a personMedium confidenceChecked 2026-10-11
2 of 5 found · open one to read why and the quote
A missed periodic-review deadline would cause a covered rule to cease being effective. Regulatory safeguards can lapse because of administrative delay, without a substantive finding that the rule is unnecessary.
“the rule has ceased to be effective”
Why the risk may be smaller: The agency must publish notice, solicit comments and can reinstate the rule after review; application is limited to rules issued within five years before enactment or later.
Small entities receive a substantive exemption when the agency fails to cooperate with the Chief Counsel's review. The exemption follows agency conduct rather than an individual business proving it meets the rule's substantive standard.
“the final rule shall not apply to small entities”
Why the risk may be smaller: The benefit is confined to small entities and is designed to enforce agency participation in review; no named firm or exclusive award is given.
A score reads how a bill is written. It does not show that anyone acted corruptly. How we score