49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–183 

PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY 

ACT OF 2015 

JUNE 25, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 690] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 690) to require each agency, in providing notice of a rule 

making, to include a link to a 100 word plain language summary 

of the proposed rule, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 2 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 2 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 2 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 2 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 2 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 2 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 3 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 4 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 4 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 4 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 4 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 6 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Purpose and Summary 

The ‘‘Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 

2015’’ improves communication to the public about planned, new 

Federal regulations by requiring that general notices of proposed 

rulemaking include the Internet address of a plain-language summary, not exceeding 100 words, of the proposed rule. That summary must, in addition, be posted on the ‘‘regulations.gov’’ website. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

A common complaint about Federal regulations and the explanatory agency notices published with them is that they are too difficult for ordinary citizens and business owners to understand 

without enlisting professional help. The bill seeks to rectify that 

through a common-sense requirement that agencies always publish 

online a 100-word summary of a proposed new regulation when the 

regulation is proposed. This requirement will facilitate public understanding of new proposed rules and help to inform public comments offered in response to notices of proposed rulemaking. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 690. 

Committee Consideration 

On March 24, 2015, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 690 favorably reported without amendment, by 

voice vote, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

690. 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 690, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 6, 2015. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 690, the ‘‘Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 690—Providing Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2015. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on April 6, 2015. 

H.R. 690 would amend Federal law to require agencies to post 

on the regulations.gov website, the Internet address to a summary 

of every proposed rule. Under the bill, those summaries would have 

to be no more than 100 words in length. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 690 would have no significant cost over the next five 

years. The bill would affect direct spending by agencies not funded 

through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending 

by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 690 

would not affect revenues. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and the June 1, 1998, Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language already require agencies 

to use plain language in all proposed and final rules. CBO expects 

that preparing the short summary of proposed rules under H.R 690 

would not significantly increase agencies’ administrative costs. 

H.R. 690 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H.R. 690 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 690 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 690 is intended 

to improve public understanding of proposed new regulations. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 690 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 

2015.’’ 

Sec. 2. Requirement to Post a 100 Word Summary to regulations.gov. Section 2 amends the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b) to require that general notices of proposed rulemaking issued by Federal agencies include the Internet address of 

a plain-language summary, not exceeding 100 words, of the proposed rule, and that the summary be posted on the regulations.gov 

website. That website is maintained by the Federal Government 

pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note). 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

CHAPTER 5—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 553. Rule making 

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved— 

(1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United 

States; or 

(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel 

or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 

(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published 

in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named 

and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include— 

(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public 

rule making proceedings; 

(2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is 

proposedø; and¿; 

(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or 

a description of the subjects and issues involvedø.¿; and 

(4) the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 

words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, that 

shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of 

the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly 

known as regulations.gov); 

Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply— 

(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or 

(B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the 

rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 

(c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give 

interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making 

through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or 

without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of 

the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the 

rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record 

after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of 

this title apply instead of this subsection. 

(d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule 

shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except— 

(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; 

(2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or 

(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

1 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2015). 

2 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2015). 

3 Regulations.gov: Frequently Asked Questions, General Information, What Can I Find on this 

Site, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs (last visited Mar. 20, 2015). 4 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (2015). 

(e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. 

* * * * * * * 

Dissenting Views 

INTRODUCTION

No one disputes the need to make the Federal rulemaking process more transparent and readily accessible by the public. Fortunately, the Federal Government has made great strides in recent 

years with the implementation of Regulations.gov, a publicly accessible website that greatly facilitates both goals by tracking the Federal rulemaking process and posting comments received from the 

public. H.R. 690, the ‘‘Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015,’’ would require the general notice of proposed 

rulemaking by a Federal agency to include a link via the Internet 

of a plain-language summary of the proposed rule, not to exceed 

100 words, which must be posted on the Regulations.gov website. 

While this measure appears to be generally modest in scope, it presents several potentially troubling concerns. First, there already 

are various requirements in effect that direct a notice of a proposed 

rulemaking to include a plain-language summary of the rule. Second, it is unclear whether an extremely complex rule that in its 

published form consumes more than 50 pages in the Federal Register can be adequately summarized in 100 words. Finally, H.R. 

690 would subject an agency’s compliance with this new requirement to judicial review and thereby delay the finalization of a proposed rule. Accordingly, we feel compelled to note these concerns 

and hope they will be taken into consideration. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 1 requires the 

Federal Government to maintain a publicly accessible website containing the electronic dockets for rulemakings under section 553 of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).2 The website, Regulations.gov, posts proposed and final regulations, notices, scientific 

and technical findings, guidance documents, and other materials.3

It also allows members of the public to comment on proposed rules 

and makes those comments available online. 

In sum, H.R. 690 amends section 553(b) of the APA 4 which sets 

forth various requirements pertaining to a notice of a proposed 

rulemaking. As amended by the bill, section 553 would require the 

general notice of proposed rulemaking by a Federal agency to include a link via the Internet of a plain-language summary of the 

proposed rule, not to exceed 100 words, which must be posted on 

the Regulations.gov website. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

5 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3) (2015). 

6 1 C.F.R. § 18.12 (2015). 

7Pub. L. No. 111–274, 124 Stat. 2861 (2010). The Act defines ‘‘plain writing’’ as ‘‘writing that 

is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or 

field and intended audience.’’ Id. at § 3(3). 8See Executive Office of the President—Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Jan. 4, 2012). 9 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORD ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT DRAFTING

HANDBOOK, at 1–8 (Oct. 1998). The Handbook provides as follows: 

Under the SUMMARY caption you explain the ‘‘what,’’ ‘‘why,’’ and ‘‘effect’’ of the document. In the SUMMARY, you must answer these three questions: 

• What action is being taken? 

• Why is this action necessary? 

• What is the intended effect of this action? 

Use the following guidelines in preparing a SUMMARY. 

• Use language a non-expert will understand. 

• Describe what the document does, not how it affects the CFR. 

• Refer to an act of Congress by the popular name of the act. 

• Do not use legal citations. 

• State what your document does; do not include regulatory history or extensive 

background. 

• Do not include qualifications, exceptions, or specific details. 

• Be brief. 

Id. 10 Exec. Order No. 13,563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3,821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 11 Executive Office of the President—Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Jan. 4, 2012). 

CONCERNS

I. NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKINGS ALREADY REQUIRE

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARIES

Notices of proposed rulemakings are already required to include 

plain-language summaries pursuant to multiple legislative and executive directives. To begin with, section 553(b) of the APA specifies various requirements pertaining to such notices, including the 

directive to describe the ‘‘terms or substance of the proposed rule 

or a description of the subjects and issues involved.’’ 5 Second, the 

Code of Federal Regulations requires a notice of a proposed rulemaking to include a preamble understandable by a person ‘‘who is 

not an expert in the subject area’’ that contains a summary consisting of ‘‘[b]rief statements, in simple language of: (i) the action 

being taken; (ii) the circumstances which created the need for the 

action; and (iii) the intended effect of the action.).’’ 6 Third, the 

Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires agencies to ‘‘use plain writing’’ 

for certain specified documents,7 which has been interpreted to 

apply to preambles for proposed rules.8 Fourth, the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook requires such notice to include 

a summary of the rule as published in the Federal Register and directs agencies to ‘‘use language a non-expert will understand.’’ 9

The Obama administration has reinforced these requirements by 

the issuance of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, which requires regulations to be ‘‘accessible, 

consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.’’ 10

Further, the Office of Management and Budget, on January 4, 

2012, issued guidance to agencies directing them to include in the 

notice of rulemakings ‘‘straightforward executive summaries’’ in 

order ‘‘[t]o promote public understanding.’’ 11 The Guidance speciVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:11 Jun 26, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR183.XXX HR183

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

12 Id. 13 Cynthia R. Farina et al., The Problem with Words: Plain Language and Public Participation 

in Rulemaking, Cornell L. School Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 15–08, at 34 (to be 

published in forthcoming Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (2015)). 14 Id. 15 Id. at 20. 16 Id. 

fies that ‘‘[t]hese summaries should separately describe major provisions and policy choices.’’ 12

The proponents of this legislation have not cited any instances 

where agencies have failed to comply with these directives, although a recent study appears to suggest that full compliance with 

them has not yet been achieved.13 Nevertheless, the authors of this 

study warn: 

Simply adding more mandates to write comprehensible 

rulemaking documents (or at least comprehensible shorter 

versions of those documents) is clearly not the answer. 

Agencies are now, and have for some time been, subject to 

multiple directives from Congress, the White House, and 

the Federal Register to write preambles and summaries 

that can be understood by people who are not experts in 

the area.14

We therefore question whether yet another directive, as imposed by 

H.R. 690, will, in fact, accomplish the goal of making the current 

rulemaking process more transparent and understandable to the 

public. 

II. H.R. 690’S 100-WORD LIMIT MAY PROVE TO BE UNWORKABLE

Proposed rules are published in the Federal Register. A printed 

page in the Federal Register consists of three columns of text in 

small print, containing about 1,000 words per page.15 The mean 

length of notices for complex rulemakings is approximately 50 Federal Register pages.16

As previously noted, H.R. 690 would require the general notice 

of proposed rulemaking issued by a Federal agency to include a 

link via the Internet of a plain-language summary of the proposed 

rule that may not exceed 100 words and which must be posted on 

the Regulations.gov website. An issue presented by the bill is with 

respect to its application to extremely complex rulemakings—which 

can be 50 pages or more in length when published in the Federal 

Register—and whether the measure’s 100-word summary limit is 

overly restrictive in such instances. For example, the first sentence 

of this paragraph—which attempts to summarize this two-page 

bill—is nearly 50 words in length. 

Thus, we are concerned that an inflexible, one-size-fits-all word 

limit could cause a summary to give the public an incomplete or 

potentially misleading explanation of a proposed rule, which would 

appear to be the opposite of what H.R. 690’s proponents intend 

III. H.R. 690 WOULD TRIGGER JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THEREBY

FURTHER SLOWDOWN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS

Many in the administrative law community, as well as consumer 

advocacy and environmental protection organizations, are conVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:11 Jun 26, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR183.XXX HR183

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

17 Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Rulemaking Ossification Is Real: A Response to Testing the Ossification Thesis, Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1493, 1493–94 (2012) (citations omitteed). 18 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2015). 19 Id. 20 Id. 

cerned about the length of time it takes for a rulemaking to become 

finalized. As one leading administrative law academic explains: 

Many scholars have long maintained that the process of 

issuing rules through the use of the notice and comment 

procedure described in § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act has become ‘‘ossified.’’ By this they mean that it 

takes a long time and an extensive commitment of agency 

resources to use the notice and comment process to issue 

a rule. Proponents of the ossification hypothesis identify 

many adverse effects of this ossification of the rulemaking 

process. Most of these proponents attribute the ossification 

of the rulemaking process primarily to the courts, with secondary roles for Congress and the White House.17

The reference to ‘‘the courts’’ in the quoted material above underscores the fact that certain aspects of the rulemaking process are 

subject to judicial review pursuant to section 706 of the APA. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, section 706 authorizes a court ‘‘to 

hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions,’’ pursuant to certain grounds set out in that provision.18

These grounds apply to agency action found to be: 

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; 

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; 

(D) without observance of procedure required by law; 

(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject 

to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed 

on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or 

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts 

are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.19

Our concern is that H.R. 690 would provide yet another way for 

opponents of a proposed rulemaking to delay or derail its finalization on the ground that a summary was somehow ‘‘not in accordance with law’’ or not in ‘‘observance of procedure,’’ for example.20

CONCLUSION

We are concerned that H.R. 690 may have some unintended consequences. Instead of making the rulemaking process more transparent, accessible, and understandable to the public, the bill could 

result in the opposite. We ask that H.R. 690’s proponents work 

with us to help ameliorate these unintended consequences prior to 

floor consideration. 

MR. CONYERS, JR. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

MR. NADLER. MS. JACKSON LEE. MR. COHEN. MR. JOHNSON, JR. MR. DEUTCH. MR. GUTIERREZ. MR. RICHMOND. MR. CICILLINE. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING