Restoring Honesty for our Economy Act

Bill: 113-s-786
Sponsor: full_name: Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]
Introduced: 2013-04-23
Policy area: Government Operations and Politics
Subjects: Accounting and auditing

Administrative law and regulatory procedures

Economic performance and conditions

Judicial review and appeals
Latest action: action_date: 2013-04-23
text: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Summaries:
action_date: 2013-04-23
action_desc: Introduced in Senate
text: <p>Restoring Honesty for our Economy Act - Prohibits a proposed economically significant regulation from being finalized unless such regulation: (1) identifies and quantifies all costs associated with it, or (2) describes why it is not possible for the agency to identify or quantify all such costs. Permits any person to file a petition for judicial review of such agency action. </p> <p>Defines &quot;economically significant regulation&quot; as one that: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or (2) adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.</p>

tv_txt: II 113th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 786 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 23, 2013 Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs A BILL To require agencies to quantify costs associated with proposed economically significant regulations, and for other purposes.

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Restoring Honesty for our Economy Act . 2. Definitions In this Act— (1) the term agency means any authority of the United States that is— (A) an agency as defined under section 3502(1) of title 44, United States Code; and (B) shall include an independent regulatory agency as defined under section 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code; (2) the term regulation — (A) means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency; and (B) shall not include— (i) a regulation issued in accordance with the formal rulemaking provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5, United States Code; (ii) a regulation that pertains to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States, other than procurement regulations and regulations involving the import or export of non-defense articles and services; or (iii) a regulation that is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters; and (3) the term economically significant regulation means any regulation that— (A) has an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; or (B) adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. 3. Finalization of proposed economically significant regulations A proposed economically significant regulation may not be finalized unless the proposed economically significant regulation— (1) identifies and quantifies all costs associated with the proposed economically significant regulation; or (2) describes why it is not possible for the agency to identify or quantify all costs associated with the proposed economically significant regulation. 4. Judicial review Any person may file a petition for judicial review of the agency action required under section 3 within the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for the circuit in which such person resides or in which such person's principal place of business is located. Courts of appeals of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any action to obtain judicial review (other than in an enforcement proceeding) of such an action if any district court of the United States would have had jurisdiction of such action but for this section.