Overview
Title
Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Health and Human Services decided to stop using a rule that made them follow extra steps when making important decisions, like giving money or benefits. Now, they will only follow the basic rules, which means they can make decisions faster without doing extra, unnecessary work.
Summary AI
The Department of Health and Human Services has rescinded the Richardson Waiver, a policy that required following certain rule-making procedures beyond what the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates for matters like public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. The department will now align strictly with the APA, which generally exempts these matters from notice and comment procedures unless law requires otherwise. The Richardson Waiver imposed extra burdens that conflicted with the efficient operation of the department. Effective immediately, the department has more flexibility to issue rules without the previous procedural obligations.
Abstract
The Department of Health and Human Services' (the Department) Immediate Office of the Secretary is rescinding the policy on Public Participation in Rule Making (Richardson Waiver) and re-aligning the Department's rule-making procedures with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register outlines a significant policy change by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It rescinds the Richardson Waiver, a policy that obligated the Department to engage in certain rule-making procedures beyond what the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prescribes. This policy change aims to align HHS rule-making more closely with the APA, streamlining the process and potentially enhancing the department's operational efficiency.
Summary
The Richardson Waiver, established in 1971, required the Department to use notice and comment rulemaking procedures for certain matters like public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, even though the APA exempts these areas from such requirements. The document states that this waiver imposed unnecessary burdens on the Department, conflicting with the APA's guidelines, which recognize the need for efficiency and swift adaptation to legal and policy changes. Effective immediately, HHS will discontinue the additional procedural obligations of the Richardson Waiver.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several concerns arise from this policy change:
Lack of Specific Cost Analysis: The document does not specify what the "extra burdens" or costs associated with the Richardson Waiver were. This omission makes it challenging to assess whether its rescission will lead to significant savings or improved efficiency.
Understanding the Good Cause Exception: The language surrounding the 'good cause' exception within the APA is somewhat technical. Individuals unfamiliar with legal statutes might find it challenging to grasp its implications without further explanation.
Potential Impact on Stakeholders: The document does not elaborate on the potential impacts of rescinding the Richardson Waiver on stakeholders involved in public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This lack of information might leave these parties uncertain about how the policy change might affect them.
Legal References: The use of legal citations and references, like 'Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n,' without summarizing their relevance, could make the document less accessible to a general audience.
Broader Public Impact
For the broader public, this policy change might streamline the regulatory process within HHS, potentially leading to faster implementation of new rules and regulations. By adhering more closely to the APA, the department could become more agile in responding to legislative and policy mandates, improving public service delivery.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders involved in matters previously affected by the Richardson Waiver, such as those dealing with public property or governmental grants, the policy change could have mixed outcomes. On one hand, they might benefit from quicker decision-making and less bureaucratic delay. On the other hand, the lack of mandatory public participation in rulemaking might raise concerns about reduced opportunities for input and transparency.
While the rescission of the Richardson Waiver aligns the Department's procedures with existing legal standards, stakeholders might need to remain vigilant about how this newly regained flexibility might be used in practice. The document leaves certain areas of impact undefined, necessitating ongoing observation to assess how these changes will play out in real-world scenarios.
Issues
• The document does not specify what the previous costs associated with the Richardson Waiver were, making it difficult to assess whether rescinding the waiver will indeed result in significant savings.
• The language explaining the good cause exception and its use by the Department may be unclear to individuals not familiar with the specific clauses of 5 U.S.C. 553.
• The document could include examples or scenarios illustrating when the Department might apply the notice and comment procedures, even if not required by law, to aid comprehension.
• The potential impact of this policy change on stakeholders involved in public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts is not discussed, leaving ambiguity regarding possible benefits or negative outcomes for those parties.
• The use of legal references such as 'Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n' and specific sections of U.S. Code without summarizing their relevance to the policy may make the document difficult for a general audience to understand.