I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2964 

To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to provide for regulatory impact analyses for certain rules, consideration of the least burdensome regulatory alternative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

Mr. YODER (for himself, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. 

FLEMING, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. FLORES, 

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. PITTS, Mr. BRADY

of Texas, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HERGER, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. 

POMPEO, and Mr. LABRADOR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in 

addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and the Budget, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

to provide for regulatory impact analyses for certain 

rules, consideration of the least burdensome regulatory 

alternative, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2964 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unfunded Mandates 

3 Accountability Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) The public has a right to know the benefits 

7 and costs of regulation. Regulations impose signifi8 cant costs on individuals, employers, State, local, 

9 and tribal governments, diverting resources from 

10 other important priorities. 

11 (2) Better regulatory analysis and review 

12 should improve the quality of agency decisions, in13 creasing the benefits and reducing unwarranted 

14 costs of regulation. 

15 (3) Disclosure and scrutiny of key information 

16 underlying agency decisions should make Govern17 ment more accountable to the public it serves. 

18 SEC. 3. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN 

19 RULES. 

20 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

21 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is amended— 

22 (1) by striking the section heading and insert23 ing the following: 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2964 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 202. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN 

2 RULES.’’; 

3 (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 

4 subsections (d) and (e), respectively; 

5 (3) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘cost’ 

8 means the cost of compliance and any reasonably foresee9 able indirect costs, including revenues lost as a result of 

10 an agency rule subject to this section. 

11 ‘‘(b) IN GENERAL.—Before promulgating any pro12 posed or final rule that may have an annual effect on the 

13 economy of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation), 

14 or that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and 

15 tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or 

16 more (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, each agency 

17 shall prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial 

18 and final regulatory impact analysis. The initial regulatory 

19 impact analysis shall accompany the agency’s notice of 

20 proposed rulemaking and shall be open to public comment. 

21 The final regulatory impact analysis shall accompany the 

22 final rule. 

23 ‘‘(c) CONTENT.—The initial and final regulatory im24 pact analysis under subsection (b) shall include— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 2964 IH

1 ‘‘(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits 

2 and costs of the rule, which shall be quantified to 

3 the extent feasible; 

4 ‘‘(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a 

5 reasonable number of regulatory alternatives within 

6 the range of the agency’s discretion under the stat7 ute authorizing the rule, including alternatives 

8 that— 

9 ‘‘(i) require no action by the Federal Gov10 ernment; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) use incentives and market-based 

12 means to encourage the desired behavior, pro13 vide information upon which choices can be 

14 made by the public, or employ other flexible 

15 regulatory options that permit the greatest 

16 flexibility in achieving the objectives of the stat17 utory provision authorizing the rule; and 

18 ‘‘(C) an explanation that the rule meets the re19 quirements of section 205; 

20 ‘‘(2) an assessment of the extent to which— 

21 ‘‘(A) the costs to State, local, and tribal 

22 governments may be paid with Federal financial 

23 assistance (or otherwise paid for by the Federal 

24 Government); and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 2964 IH

1 ‘‘(B) there are available Federal resources 

2 to carry out the rule; 

3 ‘‘(3) estimates of— 

4 ‘‘(A) any disproportionate budgetary ef5 fects of the rule upon any particular regions of 

6 the Nation or particular State, local, or tribal 

7 governments, urban or rural or other types of 

8 communities, or particular segments of the pri9 vate sector; and 

10 ‘‘(B) the effect of the rule on job creation 

11 or job loss, which shall be quantified to the ex12 tent feasible; and 

13 ‘‘(4)(A) a description of the extent of the agen14 cy’s prior consultation with elected representatives 

15 (under section 204) of the affected State, local, and 

16 tribal governments; 

17 ‘‘(B) a summary of the comments and concerns 

18 that were presented by State, local, or tribal govern19 ments either orally or in writing to the agency; and 

20 ‘‘(C) a summary of the agency’s evaluation of 

21 those comments and concerns.’’; 

22 (4) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by para23 graph (2) of this subsection), by striking ‘‘subsection 

24 (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (b)’’; and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 2964 IH

1 (5) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by para2 graph (2) of this subsection), by striking ‘‘subsection 

3 (a)’’ each place that term appears and inserting 

4 ‘‘subsection (b)’’. 

5 SEC. 4. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION RE6 QUIRED. 

7 Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

8 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1535) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 205. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION 

10 REQUIRED. 

11 ‘‘Before promulgating any proposed or final rule for 

12 which a regulatory impact analysis is required under sec13 tion 202, the agency shall— 

14 ‘‘(1) identify and consider a reasonable number 

15 of regulatory alternatives within the range of the 

16 agency’s discretion under the statute authorizing the 

17 rule, including alternatives required under section 

18 202(c)(1)(B); and 

19 ‘‘(2) from the alternatives described under 

20 paragraph (1), select the least costly, most cost-ef21 fective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves 

22 the objectives of the statute.’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
7 

•HR 2964 IH

1 SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT 

2 REGULATORY AGENCIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 421(1) of the Congres4 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 

5 U.S.C. 658(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, but does not in6 clude independent regulatory agencies’’. 

7 (b) EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.—The Un8 funded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

9 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the following: 

10 ‘‘SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY. 

11 ‘‘Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules 

12 that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by 

13 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

14 or the Federal Open Market Committee.’’. 

15 SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

16 Section 401 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

17 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1571) is amended to read as follows: 

18 ‘‘SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

19 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For any rule subject to section 

20 202, a party aggrieved by final agency action is entitled 

21 to judicial review of an agency’s analysis under and com22 pliance with subsections (b) and (c)(1) of section 202 and 

23 section 205. The scope of review shall be governed by 

24 chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. 

25 ‘‘(b) JURISDICTION.—Each court having jurisdiction 

26 to review a rule subject to section 202 for compliance with 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
8 

•HR 2964 IH

1 section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or under any 

2 other provision of law, shall have jurisdiction to review any 

3 claims brought under subsection (a) of this section. 

4 ‘‘(c) RELIEF AVAILABLE.—In granting relief in an 

5 action under this section, the court shall order the agency 

6 to take remedial action consistent with chapter 7 of title 

7 5, United States Code, including remand and vacatur of 

8 the rule.’’. 

9 SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 

11 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS