I
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 821
To reform the regulatory process, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 3, 1995
Mr. MCINTOSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Government Reform and Oversight and, in addition, to the
Committees on the Judiciary and Rules, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provi-
sions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To reform the regulatory process, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Middle Class Regu-
latory Relief Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PROPOSALS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 6 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
‘‘SUBCHAPTER II—ANALYSIS OF AGENCY
PROPOSALS
‘‘§ 621. Definitions
‘‘For purposes of this subchapter and subchapter III
of this chapter—
‘‘(1) the term ‘agency’ has the same meaning as
in section 551(1) of this title;
‘‘(2) the term ‘person’ has the same meaning as
in section 551(2) of this title;
‘‘(3) the term ‘rule’ has the same meaning as
in section 551(4) of this title;
‘‘(4)(A) the term ‘major rule’ means—
‘‘(i) a rule or a group of closely related
rules that the agency proposing the rule or the
President reasonably determines is likely to
have a gross annual effect on the economy of
$50,000,000 or more in reasonably quantifiable
increased direct and indirect costs, or has a sig-
nificant impact on a sector of the economy; or
‘‘(ii) a rule or a group of closely related
rules that is otherwise designated a major rule
by the agency proposing the rule, or by the
President on the ground that the rule is likely
to result in—
‘‘(I) a substantial increase in costs or
prices for wage earners, consumers, indi-
vidual industries, nonprofit organizations,
Federal, State, or local government agen-
cies, or geographic regions; or
‘‘(II) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, pro-
ductivity, innovation, the environment,
public health or safety, or the ability of en-
terprises whose principal places of business
are in the United States to compete in do-
mestic or export markets;
‘‘(B) the term ‘major rule’ does not include—
‘‘(i) a rule that involves the internal reve-
nue laws of the United States; or
‘‘(ii) a rule that authorizes the introduction
into commerce, or recognizes the marketable
status, of a product;
‘‘(5) the term ‘benefit’ means the reasonably
identifiable significant benefits, including social and
economic benefits, that are expected to result di-
rectly or indirectly from implementation of a rule or
an alternative to a rule;
‘‘(6) the term ‘cost’ means the reasonably iden-
tifiable significant costs and adverse effects, includ-
ing social and economic costs, reduced consumer
choice, substitution effects, and impeded techno-
logical advancement, that are expected to result di-
rectly or indirectly from implementation of, or com-
pliance with, a rule or an alternative to a rule; and
‘‘(7) the term ‘market-based mechanism’ means
a regulatory program that—
‘‘(A) imposes legal accountability for the
achievement of an explicit regulatory objective
on each regulated person;
‘‘(B) affords maximum flexibility to each
regulated person in complying with mandatory
regulatory objectives, which flexibility shall,
where feasible and appropriate, include, but not
be limited to, the opportunity to transfer to, or
receive from, other persons, including for cash
or other legal consideration, increments of com-
pliance responsibility established by the pro-
gram; and
‘‘(C) permits regulated persons to respond
automatically to changes in general economic
conditions and in economic circumstances di-
rectly pertinent to the regulatory program with-
out affecting the achievement of the program’s
explicit regulatory mandates.
‘‘§ 622. Rulemaking cost-benefit analysis
‘‘(a)(1) Prior to publishing notice of a proposed rule-
making for any rule (or, in the case of a notice of a pro-
posed rulemaking that has been published on or before the
date of enactment of this subchapter, not later than 30
days after such date of enactment), each agency shall de-
termine whether the rule is or is not a major rule within
the meaning of section 621(4)(A)(i) and, if it is not,
whether it should be designated a major rule under section
621(4)(A)(ii). For the purpose of any such determination
or designation, a group of closely related rules shall be
considered as one rule.
‘‘(2) Each notice of proposed rulemaking shall in-
clude a succinct statement and explanation of the agency’s
determination under paragraph (1).
‘‘(b)(1) If an agency has determined that a rule is
not a major rule within the meaning of section
621(4)(A)(i) and has not designated the rule a major rule
within the meaning of section 621(4)(A)(ii), the President
may, as appropriate, determine that the rule is a major
rule or designate the rule a major rule not later than 30
days after the publication of the notice of proposed rule-
making for the rule (or, in the case of a notice of proposed
rulemaking that has been published on or before the date
of enactment of this subchapter, not later than 60 days
after such date of enactment).