Overview
Title
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.
ELI5 AI
S. 485 is a bill that says new important rules made by the President's team can't be used unless Congress agrees to them first, kind of like needing a teacher's approval before starting a big project at school.
Summary AI
The proposed bill, S. 485, seeks to amend chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code to ensure that major rules created by the executive branch do not take effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval. The purpose of the bill is to enhance accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory process by requiring congressional approval for major rules, which are defined as rules with a significant economic impact or adverse effects on various aspects of the economy. The bill also outlines a detailed procedure for congressional review and approval, sets expiration dates for rules, and establishes rules on the publication of guidance documents by federal agencies.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed bill, titled the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025," aims to amend chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. Its primary objective is to ensure that major rules proposed by the executive branch do not take effect unless Congress approves them through a joint resolution. The bill emphasizes increasing accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory process, ensuring that the legislative branch actively participates in and is accountable for the laws affecting the American people. Additionally, it includes provisions for the Congressional review of agency rulemaking, definitions of key terms, judicial review guidelines, and exceptions for specific actions.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the main concerns with this bill is the requirement for Congressional approval before major rules can take effect, a process that could potentially delay important regulatory actions. This added legislative step introduces complexities and increases chances of gridlock, especially for urgent regulations. Furthermore, the bill's stipulations preclude most judicial reviews of actions and determinations, raising questions about limiting oversight and accountability of federal agencies.
Another issue is the exemptions for monetary and deregulatory actions. These carve-outs might lead to significant regulations being ignored, risking inadequate oversight and potentially bypassing the bill's scrutiny intentions. Additionally, the bill defines 'major rule' with broad economic criteria, which might lead to excessive regulatory burdens. The requirement for agencies to review and seek Congressional approval of existing rules every ten years could create regulatory uncertainty and potential enforcement gaps.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill might slow down the introduction of necessary regulations due to the required Congressional approval, potentially impacting public safety, health, and environmental protections. Procedures around rule enactment and expiration could lead to regulatory uncertainty. For the average citizen, this could mean delays in seeing new protections or improvements enacted.
Furthermore, the limitation on judicial review undermines the checks and balances usually maintained in regulatory processes, which could lead to unchecked errors or oversights by federal agencies. This lack of oversight might eventually impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory environment that governs everyday life.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Regulatory Agencies: The bill places considerable administrative burdens on federal agencies, requiring them to adhere to complex procedures for getting rules approved and maintaining the eligibility criteria for rules to remain in effect. This additional workload might divert resources from other critical functions, thus affecting agencies' overall efficiency and effectiveness.
Congress: While aiming to increase accountability, the requirement for Congressional approval for major rules could lead to increased workload, requiring rapid assessment and decision-making on complex regulations. This process might burden Congress, especially given the strict timelines for resolutions.
Businesses and Industry: Positive outcomes could arise in industries if Congressional oversight leads to more balanced regulations that carefully consider economic impacts. However, businesses relying on swift regulatory responses might face delays, affecting their operations or compliance processes.
Legal System: The lack of judicial review may reduce potential litigation costs for regulatory agencies, but could increase challenges and disputes in court by stakeholders seeking recourse for perceived overreach or oversight by agencies. The possibility of multiple interpretations and the right to appeal might lead to inconsistent applications of the law.
In conclusion, while the bill seeks to provide additional oversight of the federal regulatory framework, it might result in significant delays, increased complexity, and potential gaps in regulation unless carefully managed and implemented with clear guidelines and definitions.
Financial Assessment
The proposed bill, known as S. 485, primarily focuses on changing how major rules from the executive branch are implemented by requiring congressional approval. This shift in the regulatory process inherently involves financial considerations, as major rules often have significant economic impacts.
Financial Impacts of Major Rules
A significant element of the bill is the classification of rules based on their economic impact. For a rule to qualify as a "major rule," it must be determined that it is likely to result in an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. This classification is crucial as it emphasizes the financial gravity of such rules and sets a baseline for what qualifies as a major rule.
The issues arising from this stipulation highlight potential challenges. The broad economic impact requirement for a rule to be classified as major could lead to delays in regulatory processes. This is because the bill requires these major rules to receive congressional approval before they take effect. Such a requirement might inadvertently slow down necessary regulatory actions, thereby affecting industries and sectors economically reliant on timely rule implementation.
Congressional Review and Financial Allocations
The bill outlines specific procedures for congressional review and approval. While it does not directly allocate funds, the legislative process described may demand additional resources from Congress and federal agencies to comply with the increased oversight and procedural requirements. This could result in indirect financial implications, such as administrative costs and resource allocation to comply with these extensive procedures.
Significant Guidance Documents
The bill also addresses significant guidance documents, categorizing them with potential economic effects of $100,000,000 or more. Including these guidance documents under the purview of major rules signifies acknowledgment of their substantial economic impact. However, it also raises questions about clarity and consistency in implementation, as highlighted in the issues. The absence of specific criteria for determining what constitutes a significant guidance document may lead to discrepancies in classification and oversight, possibly impacting economic and regulatory stability.
Impact on Regulatory Planning and Budget
The requirement for regulatory planning and budgeting includes calculating costs and savings associated with regulatory actions. For instance, any "incremental regulatory cost" is defined as the difference between the estimated cost of a significant regulatory action and the cost saved by any deregulatory action. This financial planning ensures that regulatory actions are economically viable and are accompanied by deregulatory measures to offset costs. Such regulations aim to balance introducing new rules and rolling back outdated ones, thereby influencing government spending and regulatory budgets.
Navigating Financial Challenges
The bill's mandate for major rules to be contingent upon congressional approval underlines an effort to ensure accountability. However, this involves navigating a complex interplay between financial impacts, regulatory processes, and legislative oversight. While the framework intends to increase transparency and control, it raises concerns about potential slowdowns in rule implementation, which might affect sectors economically dependent on timely regulations.
In summary, the bill S. 485 inherently ties financial assessments with legislative oversight over executive rule-making, aiming to ensure that significant economic impacts from new rules are scrutinized and validated through a democratic process. However, this approach brings challenges in terms of procedural complexity and potential economic delays, reflecting the intricate balance between governance and financial stewardship.
Issues
The bill mandates that major rules do not take effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval. This significant shift in the regulatory process could delay necessary regulations and potentially increase legislative gridlock (Section 801).
Judicial review is generally precluded for actions and determinations under the bill, which raises concerns about limiting oversight and accountability for federal agencies (Section 805).
The bill introduces complex procedures for Congressional approval and disapproval of rules, which may be inaccessible to those without legal expertise, potentially leading to increased confusion and reduced transparency (Sections 802 and 803).
Exemptions for monetary policy could result in a lack of oversight for important federal actions, potentially impacting the economy without congressional review (Section 808).
The requirement for Congressional approval may impose significant administrative burdens and complicate the process, particularly for nonmajor rules, potentially slowing down the regulatory process (Section 803).
The definition of 'major rule' includes broad economic impacts, leaving room for interpretation that might result in excessive regulatory burdens or oversight gaps (Section 804).
Affirmative defenses based on what an individual of ordinary intelligence could anticipate may lead to inconsistent applications and potential misuse in legal settings (Section 806).
The inclusion of 'significant guidance' in the definition of 'rule' without providing specific criteria may create ambiguities in what constitutes a rule, affecting regulatory practices (Sections 804 and 6).
The exemption for deregulatory actions may lead to significant regulations being overlooked if improperly classified, risking a lack of oversight and potentially circumventing the intended purpose of the legislation (Section 809).
The expiration of rules creates potential regulatory uncertainty by requiring joint resolutions for rule continuation, which may result in gaps affecting ongoing regulatory systems (Section 813).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act establishes its official name as the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025”.
2. Purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The purpose of this Act is to make the federal government more transparent and accountable by ensuring Congress carefully considers and votes on laws before they are made. It aims to improve the way regulations are created and to hold Congress responsible for the laws affecting the American people.
3. Congressional review of agency rulemaking Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Congressional Review provisions require that before a federal agency's new rule can take effect, the agency must publish detailed information about the rule and submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General. This process allows Congress to review and possibly disapprove both major and nonmajor rules through joint resolutions, ensuring that significant regulations do not take effect without legislative approval.
Money References
- “(3) The term ‘major rule’— “(A) means any rule, including an interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in— “(i) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; “(ii) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or “(iii) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; “(B) includes any significant guidance document; and “(C) does not include any rule promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 56) or the amendments made by that Act.
- “(6) The term ‘significant guidance document’— “(A) means a guidance document disseminated to regulated entities or the general public that may reasonably be anticipated to— “(i) lead to an annual effect of $100,000,000 or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, employment, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; “(ii) create a serious inconsistency, or otherwise interfere, with an action taken or planned by another agency; “(iii) materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlement, grant, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or “(iv) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates; and “(B) does not include any guidance document— “(i) on regulations issued in accordance with section 556 or 557 of this title; “(ii) 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; “(iii) on regulations that are limited to the organization, management, or personnel matters of a Federal agency; or “(iv) belonging to a category of guidance documents exempted by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
- “(8) The term ‘significant regulatory action’ means any regulatory action, other than monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee, that is likely to— “(A) have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely affect 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; “(B) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal agency; “(C) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or “(D) raise a novel legal or policy issue.
801. Congressional review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Before a new federal rule can take effect, the agency creating the rule must provide specific information, including a report to Congress and the Comptroller General. For major rules, a joint resolution of approval from Congress is needed, while nonmajor rules follow a different procedure. Additionally, the President can temporarily enact a major rule under special circumstances like emergencies or national security concerns. If Congress does not approve a major rule within certain timeframes, the rule will not take effect.
802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process for Congress to approve major rules through joint resolutions. It describes how such resolutions must be introduced, referred to committees, and voted on in both the House and the Senate, while specifying timelines and procedures to ensure these rules are promptly considered.
803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, Congress outlines a process for rejecting nonmajor rules through a joint resolution, which must be introduced within a specific time frame and can be expedited through both the House and Senate. The Senate has strict rules on debating these resolutions, including time limits and restrictions on amendments, to ensure prompt consideration and voting.
804. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section defines several key terms used in the chapter, including "Federal agency," "guidance document," "major rule," "nonmajor rule," "rule," "significant guidance document," and "submission or publication date." It explains how each term applies to different regulatory and legislative contexts, such as the impact of certain rules on the economy, competition, and agency operations.
Money References
- (3) The term “major rule”— (A) means any rule, including an interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in— (i) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (ii) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (iii) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; (B) includes any significant guidance document; and (C) does not include any rule promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 56) or the amendments made by that Act.
- (6) The term “significant guidance document”— (A) means a guidance document disseminated to regulated entities or the general public that may reasonably be anticipated to— (i) lead to an annual effect of $100,000,000 or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, employment, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (ii) create a serious inconsistency, or otherwise interfere, with an action taken or planned by another agency; (iii) materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlement, grant, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or (iv) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates; and (B) does not include any guidance document— (i) on regulations issued in accordance with section 556 or 557 of this title; (ii) 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; (iii) on regulations that are limited to the organization, management, or personnel matters of a Federal agency; or (iv) belonging to a category of guidance documents exempted by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
805. Judicial review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Judicial review of decisions made under this chapter is generally not allowed, but an exception exists for courts to check if a federal agency has followed necessary procedures for a rule to take effect. Additionally, passing a joint resolution of approval does not provide new legal authority, nor does it impact claims against any issues with a rule.
806. Affirmative defense Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
An affirmative defense is available to a defendant in a federal administrative or court proceeding if a person of average intelligence would not have understood from the law's language that their behavior was illegal.
807. Private right of action Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
People who believe a Federal agency has not followed the rules can take the issue to a U.S. district court to stop the rule before it becomes effective. They can also challenge the agency's decision on whether the rule is significant enough to need Congressional approval, and the court can decide to cancel or reclassify the rule as major, which would require more steps before it can be enacted.
808. Exemption for monetary policy Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the rules in this chapter do not apply to matters related to monetary policy that are proposed or carried out by the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.
809. Exemption for deregulatory actions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Sections 802 and 803 do not apply to rules that are categorized as deregulatory actions in the Unified Agenda and Annual Regulatory Plan according to section 811.
810. Effective date of certain rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Certain rules related to activities like hunting, fishing, or camping, and non-major rules deemed urgent by a Federal agency, will take effect whenever the agency decides, even if normal public notice and procedure are skipped.
811. Regulatory planning and budget Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, it explains how the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for publishing a unified regulatory agenda each April and October, detailing both regulatory and deregulatory actions planned by agencies. It outlines definitions for key terms, procedures for assessing regulatory costs and benefits, and requirements for significant regulatory actions, including a Federal Regulatory Budget to control incremental regulatory costs and instructions for offsetting new regulations with deregulatory actions.
Money References
- (8) The term “significant regulatory action” means any regulatory action, other than monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee, that is likely to— (A) have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely affect 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; (B) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal agency; (C) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (D) raise a novel legal or policy issue.
812. Publication of guidance documents on the internet Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Federal agencies must publish their guidance documents online in a centralized location designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. These documents are to be clearly categorized and accessible, unless they are exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, and any rescinded documents need to be maintained with an indication of their rescission date and court case details if applicable.
813. Expiration of rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each major rule made by a Federal agency will automatically expire 10 years after being enacted unless Congress passes a joint resolution to extend it. The President can exempt one rule per Congress from expiring for up to 30 days if it's necessary for urgent reasons like health or security. A report must be submitted to Congress 180 days before a rule's expiration.
814. Review of rules in effect Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each year, starting six months after this law is passed and for the next nine years, federal agencies must review at least 10% of their major rules and report them to Congress for approval. If, after ten years, Congress has not approved any such rule, it will no longer be valid.
4. Budgetary effects of rules subject to section 802 of title 5, United States Code Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act to state that any rule affecting budget authority, expenses, or income, which is subject to congressional approval under section 802 of title 5, will be considered effective unless Congress explicitly disapproves it.
5. Government Accountability Office study of rules Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Comptroller General of the United States is tasked with studying and reporting on the number of federal rules and major rules currently in effect, along with their total estimated economic cost, following the enactment of this Act. A report with the study's findings must be submitted to Congress within one year.
6. Definition of “rule” to include significant guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code, to expand the definition of "rule" to include "significant guidance" as defined in section 804, ensuring these types of guidance are treated with the same importance as formal rules.