```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2964 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The public has a right to know the benefits and costs 
        of regulation. Regulations impose significant costs on 
        individuals, employers, State, local, and tribal governments, 
        diverting resources from other important priorities.
            (2) Better regulatory analysis and review should improve 
        the quality of agency decisions, increasing the benefits and 
        reducing unwarranted costs of regulation.
            (3) Disclosure and scrutiny of key information underlying 
        agency decisions should make Government more accountable to the 
        public it serves.

SEC. 3. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1532) is amended--
            (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
        following:

``SEC. 202. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.'';

            (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
        (d) and (e), respectively;
            (3) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `cost' means the cost 
of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable indirect costs, including 
revenues lost as a result of an agency rule subject to this section.
    ``(b) In General.--Before promulgating any proposed or final rule 
that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more 
(adjusted for inflation), or that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 
or more (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, each agency shall 
prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and final 
regulatory impact analysis. The initial regulatory impact analysis 
shall accompany the agency's notice of proposed rulemaking and shall be 
open to public comment. The final regulatory impact analysis shall 
accompany the final rule.
    ``(c) Content.--The initial and final regulatory impact analysis 
under subsection (b) shall include--
            ``(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits and costs 
        of the rule, which shall be quantified to the extent feasible;
            ``(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a reasonable 
        number of regulatory alternatives within the range of the 
        agency's discretion under the statute authorizing the rule, 
        including alternatives that--
                    ``(i) require no action by the Federal Government; 
                and
                    ``(ii) use incentives and market-based means to 
                encourage the desired behavior, provide information 
                upon which choices can be made by the public, or employ 
                other flexible regulatory options that permit the 
                greatest flexibility in achieving the objectives of the 
                statutory provision authorizing the rule; and
            ``(C) an explanation that the rule meets the requirements 
        of section 205;
            ``(2) an assessment of the extent to which--
                    ``(A) the costs to State, local, and tribal 
                governments may be paid with Federal financial 
                assistance (or otherwise paid for by the Federal 
                Government); and
                    ``(B) there are available Federal resources to 
                carry out the rule;
            ``(3) estimates of--
                    ``(A) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the 
                rule upon any particular regions of the Nation or 
                particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban 
                or rural or other types of communities, or particular 
                segments of the private sector; and
                    ``(B) the effect of the rule on job creation or job 
                loss, which shall be quantified to the extent feasible; 
                and
            ``(4)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior 
        consultation with elected representatives (under section 204) 
        of the affected State, local, and tribal governments;
            ``(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were 
        presented by State, local, or tribal governments either orally 
        or in writing to the agency; and
            ``(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those 
        comments and concerns.'';
            (4) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting 
        ``subsection (b)''; and
            (5) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' each place 
        that term appears and inserting ``subsection (b)''.

SEC. 4. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.

    Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1535) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 205. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.

    ``Before promulgating any proposed or final rule for which a 
regulatory impact analysis is required under section 202, the agency 
shall--
            ``(1) identify and consider a reasonable number of 
        regulatory alternatives within the range of the agency's 
        discretion under the statute authorizing the rule, including 
        alternatives required under section 202(c)(1)(B); and
            ``(2) from the alternatives described under paragraph (1), 
        select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
        burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
        statute.''.

SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 421(1) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(1)) is amended by 
striking ``, but does not include independent regulatory agencies''.
    (b) Exemption for Monetary Policy.--The Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
section 5 the following:

``SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

    ``Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that concern 
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.''.

SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    Section 401 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1571) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    ``(a) In General.--For any rule subject to section 202, a party 
aggrieved by final agency action is entitled to judicial review of an 
agency's analysis under and compliance with subsections (b) and (c)(1) 
of section 202 and section 205. The scope of review shall be governed 
by chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
    ``(b) Jurisdiction.--Each court having jurisdiction to review a 
rule subject to section 202 for compliance with section 553 of title 5, 
United States Code, or under any other provision of law, shall have 
jurisdiction to review any claims brought under subsection (a) of this 
section.
    ``(c) Relief Available.--In granting relief in an action under this 
section, the court shall order the agency to take remedial action 
consistent with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, including 
remand and vacatur of the rule.''.

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```