5 U.S. Code § 801 - Congressional review
prev | next
(A) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing—
(B) On the date of the submission of the report under subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to each House of Congress—
(iii) the agency’s actions relevant to sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph (A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law under which the rule is issued.
(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction in each House of the Congress by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date as provided in section 802 (b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the agency’s compliance with procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B).
(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect on the latest of—
(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after the date on which—
(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described in section 802 relating to the rule, and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the earlier date—
(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802 is enacted).
(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the effective date of a rule shall not be delayed by operation of this chapter beyond the date on which either House of Congress votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802.
(1) A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802, of the rule.
(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would not take effect by reason of subsection (a)(3) may take effect, if the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such determination to the Congress.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the President by Executive order that the rule should take effect because such rule is—
(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under section 802 or the effect of a joint resolution of disapproval under this section.
(1) In addition to the opportunity for review otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date occurring—
before the date the Congress adjourns a session of Congress through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, section 802 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding session of Congress.
(A) In applying section 802 for purposes of such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though—
(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take effect) on—
after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
(1) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall also apply to any major rule promulgated between March 1, 1996, and the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though—
(3) The effectiveness of a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be as otherwise provided by law, unless the rule is made of no force or effect under section 802.
(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.
(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802 respecting a rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint resolution of disapproval.
Source(Added Pub. L. 104–121, title II, § 251,Mar. 29, 1996, 110 Stat. 868.)
References in Text
Sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, referred to in subsec. (a)(1)(B)(iii), are classified to sections 1532, 1533, 1534, and 1535, respectively, of Title 2, The Congress.
The date of the enactment of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (e)(1), (2), is the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 104–121, which was approved Mar. 29, 1996.
Pub. L. 104–121, title II, § 252,Mar. 29, 1996, 110 Stat. 874, provided that: “The amendment made by section 351 [probably means section 251, enacting this chapter] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 29, 1996].”
Truth in Regulating
Pub. L. 106–312, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1248, as amended by Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b),July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814, provided that:“SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Truth in Regulating Act of 2000’.“SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
“The purposes of this Act are to—
“(1) increase the transparency of important regulatory decisions;
“(2) promote effective congressional oversight to ensure that agency rules fulfill statutory requirements in an efficient, effective, and fair manner; and
“(3) increase the accountability of Congress and the agencies to the people they serve.“SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
“In this Act, the term—
“(2) ‘economically significant rule’ means any proposed or final rule, including an interim or direct final rule, that may 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; and
“(3) ‘independent evaluation’ means a substantive evaluation of the agency’s data, methodology, and assumptions used in developing the economically significant rule, including—
“(A) an explanation of how any strengths or weaknesses in those data, methodology, and assumptions support or detract from conclusions reached by the agency; and
“(B) the implications, if any, of those strengths or weaknesses for the rulemaking.“SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.
“(a) In General.—
“(1) Request for review.—When an agency publishes an economically significant rule, a chairman or ranking member of a committee of jurisdiction of either House of Congress may request the Comptroller General of the United States to review the rule.
“(2) Report.—The Comptroller General shall submit a report on each economically significant rule selected under paragraph (4) to the committees of jurisdiction in each House of Congress not later than 180 calendar days after a committee request is received. The report shall include an independent evaluation of the economically significant rule by the Comptroller General.
“(3) Independent evaluation.—The independent evaluation of the economically significant rule by the Comptroller General under paragraph (2) shall include—
“(A) an evaluation of the agency’s analysis of the potential benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the persons or entities likely to receive the benefits;
“(B) an evaluation of the agency’s analysis of the potential costs of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms and the identification of the persons or entities likely to bear the costs;
“(C) an evaluation of the agency’s analysis of alternative approaches set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking and in the rulemaking record, as well as of any regulatory impact analysis, federalism assessment, or other analysis or assessment prepared by the agency or required for the economically significant rule; and
“(D) a summary of the results of the evaluation of the Comptroller General and the implications of those results.
“(4) Procedures for priorities of requests.—The Comptroller General shall have discretion to develop procedures for determining the priority and number of requests for review under paragraph (1) for which a report will be submitted under paragraph (2).
“(b) Authority of Comptroller General.—Each agency shall promptly cooperate with the Comptroller General in carrying out this Act. Nothing in this Act is intended to expand or limit the authority of the Government Accountability Office.“SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
“There are authorized to be appropriated to the Government Accountability Office to carry out this Act $5,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.“SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF PILOT PROJECT.
“(a) Effective Date.—This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 2000].
“(b) Duration of Pilot Project.—The pilot project under this Act shall continue for a period of 3 years, if in each fiscal year, or portion thereof included in that period, a specific annual appropriation not less than $5,200,000 or the pro-rated equivalent thereof shall have been made for the pilot project.
“(c) Report.—Before the conclusion of the 3-year period, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report reviewing the effectiveness of the pilot project and recommending whether or not Congress should permanently authorize the pilot project.”