US Federal 2023-2024 Regular Session

US Federal House Bill HB277

Introduced
1/11/23  
Refer
1/11/23  
Report Pass
5/24/23  

Caption

Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 This bill revises provisions relating to congressional review of agency rulemaking. Specifically, the bill establishes a congressional approval process for a major rule. A major rule may only take effect if Congress approves of the rule. A major rule is a rule that has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The bill generally preserves the current congressional review process for a nonmajor rule.

Impact

Should HB 277 become law, it would significantly alter the process by which federal regulations are implemented. By necessitating congressional approval for major rules, the bill aims to enhance congressional oversight and limit the scope of executive power in regulatory affairs. This shift may lead to slower implementation of vital regulations as Congress could delay or deny approval, thereby impacting nationwide regulatory frameworks and possibly hindering timely responses to urgent public policy issues.

Summary

House Bill 277, formally known as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, seeks to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require congressional approval for major rules put forth by federal agencies. Under this legislation, no major rule can take effect unless explicitly approved by a joint resolution of Congress. The definition of a major rule includes provisions that would have significant economic impacts, including substantial costs or adverse effects on competition and employment.

Sentiment

The reception of HB 277 has been mixed among legislators. Supporters, particularly from Republican circles, argue that the bill restores necessary checks on executive authority, ensuring that regulations are not imposed without adequate scrutiny. Conversely, critics, including many Democrats, warn that the bill could be an obstacle to effective governance, arguing that it undermines the necessary regulatory authority of federal agencies. They contend that such restrictions could lead to regulatory paralysis and ultimately harm the public interest.

Contention

A notable point of contention surrounding HB 277 is the definition of a 'major rule' and the implications of requiring congressional approval for such regulations. Critics fear that this would give Congress undue influence over essential regulations, potentially politicizing the regulatory process. Proponents insist that this adds a layer of accountability and ensures that regulations are aligned with legislative intent. Overall, the debate highlights the ongoing struggle between maintaining effective governance and ensuring adequate oversight of executive power.

Companion Bills

US SB184

Identical bill Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023

US HB2811

Related bill Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of 2023 TAPP American Resources Act Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production of American Resources Act Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023

US HR463

Procedurally-related Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 288) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products", and for other purposes.

US HR495

Related bill Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'stabilizing braces'"; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 288) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R 1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products", and for other purposes.

US SB5242

Related bill Saving Privacy Act

Previously Filed As

US SB30

Expediting Reform And Stopping Excess Regulations Act or the ERASER ActThis bill generally requires federal agencies to repeal three rules before issuing a new rule.In the case of a new nonmajor rule, an agency must repeal at least three rules that, to the extent practicable, are related to the new rule.In the case of a new major rule, (1) an agency must repeal at least three rules that are related to the new major rule, and (2) the cost of the new major rule must be less than or equal to the cost of the repealed rules. A major rule is a rule that has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation.These requirements apply to rules issued through the notice and comment process and do not apply to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Further, the requirements do not apply to a rule or major rule that relates to the management, organization, or personnel of an agency or procurement by the agency.Any rule repealed under this bill must be published in the Federal Register.Finally, the Government Accountability Office must report on the number and estimated cost of rules and major rules currently in effect.  

US SB76

Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025 or the SMART Act of 2025This bill requires agencies, when publishing a proposed or final major rule, to include a framework for assessing whether the rule achieves its regulatory objective. An agency must assess a rule in the time frame included in the framework. The assessment must compare the rule's anticipated and actual benefits and costs.Additionally, the assessment must determine whether (1) the rule has been rendered unnecessary because of changes to the subject area affected by the rule or it overlaps with, duplicates, or conflicts with other rules, or state and local government regulations; (2) the rule should be expanded, streamlined, or otherwise modified to accomplish the rule's objective; and (3) other alternatives or modifications to the rule could better achieve the rule's objective. The bill defines a major rule as a rule likely to cause (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

US SB77

Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025This bill directs agencies to publish an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking at least 90 days before publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking for a major rule. A major rule is a rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines is likely to impose (1) an annual economic effect of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.The advance notice mustinclude a description of the problem the rule may address, alternatives under consideration, and the legal authority for proposing the rule; andsolicit and provide at least 30 days for submission of written data, views, and argument from interested persons.Any difference between such advance notice and the notice of proposed rulemaking may not be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law for the purposes of review under the Administrative Procedure Act.Advance notice is not required if the proposing agency is not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking or OIRA finds that advance notice is (1) not in the public interest, (2) duplicative of a similar process, (3) not practicable due to a required deadline, or (4) for a rule that is routine or periodic in nature.

US SF2463

A bill for an act concerning the executive branch rulemaking process, including the uniform rules on agency procedure and review and regulatory readoption of rules, and including effective date provisions. (Formerly SSB 3166.) Effective date: 04/16/2026, 07/01/2026.

US SF0063

AN ACT relating to administrative procedure; requiring agencies to provide notice of major rules as specified; clarifying the definition of major rule; requiring rulemaking; and providing for an effective date.

US HB262

All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2023 or the ALERT Act of 2023 This bill establishes various reporting requirements with respect to federal agency rulemaking. Specifically, each agency must submit a monthly report to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for each rule the agency expects to propose or finalize during the following year, including information about the objectives and legal basis for the rule as well as whether the rule is subject to periodic review based on its significant economic impact. Additionally, each agency must submit a monthly report for any rule expected to be finalized during the following year for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking, including an approximate schedule for completing action on the rule and an estimate of its cost and economic effects. OIRA must publish this information online and, subject to certain exceptions, a rule may not take effect until the information has been published for at least six months. The bill also requires OIRA to annually publish in the Federal Register specified information it receives from agencies under this bill, including a list of each rule an agency has proposed and the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized. OIRA must further publish online (1) any analysis of the costs or benefits of rules that were proposed or finalized during the previous year, and (2) a list of rules that were subjected to various forms of review during the previous year.

US HB49

Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2023 or the REVIEW Act of 2023 This bill prohibits a final agency rule from taking effect until (1) the agency submits the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and (2) OIRA makes a determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule that may impose an annual cost on the economy of at least $1 billion. In addition, an agency must postpone the effective date of a high-impact rule until the final disposition of all actions seeking judicial review of the rule.

US H7307

Establishes the Rhode Island Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act which would require review and approval of rules with implementation and compliance costs of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more over a two-year period.

US SB1024

Administrative rules; removing expedited rule repeal exception; approval prior to proceeding with rulemaking process; impact statement; requirements. Effective date. Emergency.

US SB1024

Administrative rules; removing expedited rule repeal exception; approval prior to proceeding with rulemaking process; impact statement; requirements. Effective date. Emergency.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.