This legislation, titled the "Regulatory Accountability Act," aims to enhance transparency, accountability, and analytical rigor in federal agency rulemaking. It introduces new definitions for "guidance," "major guidance," and "major rule," with "major rules" and "major guidance" being those likely to have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, cause significant cost increases, or have adverse effects on competition, employment, or public health and safety. These definitions trigger more stringent procedural requirements throughout the rulemaking process.

The bill mandates that agencies consider a broader range of factors when developing rules, including the problem's nature, existing laws, and a reasonable number of alternatives, with a presumption of at least three. For major rules, agencies must conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses of potential costs and benefits for all alternatives. Before publishing a proposed rule, agencies must submit it to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, and the notice must include a summary of these considerations and, for major rules, a preliminary explanation of how benefits justify costs.

Enhanced public participation is a key feature, requiring agencies to make all studies, models, and scientific literature relied upon publicly accessible in the rulemaking docket. Agencies must use the best publicly available scientific, technical, or economic information when proposing rules. The bill extends public comment periods to 60 days for general rules and 90 days for major rules, adding a 30-day responsive comment period for major rules to allow feedback on other submissions.

For potential major rules, agencies must publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) at least 90 days before the formal proposal, inviting alternatives and soliciting data. If proceeding, a detailed timetable for the rulemaking must be established and published, with any missed deadlines requiring a report to Congress. The bill also restricts agency communications during rulemaking, prohibiting advocacy for or against proposed rules and requiring publication of all ex parte communications with stakeholders.

When finalizing major rules, agencies must adopt the alternative that maximizes net benefits, unless OIRA approves an exception for unquantifiable factors or additional benefits/cost reductions. Final rule notices must include a reasoned determination that benefits justify costs and that the chosen alternative maximizes net benefits. Agencies are also required to establish a framework for assessing major rules, including clear objectives, methodologies, and data collection plans, with assessments conducted within 10 years and periodically thereafter to ensure continued effectiveness and necessity.

OIRA's oversight is significantly strengthened, providing guidance, reviewing rules for compliance and consistency, and reporting annually to Congress on agency adherence to major rule requirements. The bill also modifies judicial review standards, requiring courts to decide questions of law de novo while giving due regard to agency views. Importantly, most OIRA actions under this Act are explicitly shielded from judicial review, and the weight given to an agency's interpretation of its own rules is made dependent on the thoroughness and consistency of its reasoning.

The legislation clarifies that agency guidance documents are not legally binding and must explicitly state this, as well as be published in a single online location. For major guidance, agencies must ensure clarity, compliance with objectives, and that benefits justify costs. The bill's amendments apply only to rulemaking initiated after its enactment, ensuring existing or pending rules are not retroactively affected.