What is required for a review of rule-making to be valid?

A valid review of rule-making must be definite and limited to ensure that the process is focused, manageable, and conducted within a defined scope. This means that the review should target specific aspects of the rule-making process, allowing for thorough examination without overwhelming complexity. A definite and limited scope helps to clarify objectives, reducing ambiguity and facilitating a more precise assessment of whether the rules align with statutory mandates, policy goals, and stakeholder input.

Establishing clear parameters for the review process enhances accountability and transparency, ensuring that stakeholders understand what is being evaluated and why. This approach is essential for producing actionable insights and recommendations that can effectively guide future rule-making.

The other options suggest approaches that could undermine the effectiveness and integrity of the review process. For instance, secrecy and a lack of announcement would inhibit transparency and public participation, while a broad and all-encompassing review might lead to incoherence and difficulties in drawing specific conclusions. Requiring approval from the executive branch, on the other hand, may introduce biases or pressures that could skew the review outcome, detracting from its objectivity and independence.