S.1189 - Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act of 2011
A bill to amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) to provide for regulatory impact analyses for certain rules, consideration of the least burdensome regulatory alternative, and for other purposes.
Loading Bill Text
Rollover any line of text to comment and/or link to it.
To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENZI, Mr. HATCH, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
(1) The public has a right to know the benefits and costs of regulation. Effective regulatory programs provide important benefits to the public, including protecting the environment, worker safety, and human health. Regulations also impose significant costs on individuals, employers, State, local, and tribal governments, diverting resources from other important priorities.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 3. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.
‘SEC. 202. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.’;
‘(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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is amended by striking the item relating to section 202 and inserting the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
SEC. 4. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.
‘SEC. 205. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.
‘(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(b)(1)(B); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
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 (
‘SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
‘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 sections 202 (b) and (c)(1) and 205. The scope of review shall be governed by chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘(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.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink