[House Report 104-284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                            Rept. 104-284
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________


 
               REGULATORY SUNSET AND REVIEW ACT OF 1995

                                _______


November 7, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 994]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 994), the ``Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 
1995,'' having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     8
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................    13
Vote of the Committee............................................    13
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    13
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings............    13
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    14
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    14
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................    16
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    16
Additional Views.................................................    26

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purposes of this Act are--
          (1) to require agencies to regularly review their significant 
        rules to determine whether they should be continued without 
        change, modified, consolidated with another rule, or 
        terminated;
          (2) to require agencies to consider the comments of the 
        public, the regulated community, and the Congress regarding the 
        actual costs and burdens of rules being reviewed under this 
        Act, and whether the rules are obsolete, unnecessary, 
        duplicative, conflicting, or otherwise inconsistent;
          (3) to require that any rules continued in effect under this 
        Act meet all the legal requirements that would apply to the 
        issuance of a new rule, including any applicable Federal cost/
        benefit and risk assessment requirements;
          (4) to provide for the review of significant rules and other 
        rules through a sunset review process and to provide for the 
        repeal or other change in such rules in accordance with 
        chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, United States Code;
          (5) to provide for a petition process that allows the public 
        and appropriate committees of the Congress to request that 
        other rules that are not significant be reviewed in the same 
        manner as significant rules; and
          (6) to require the Administrator to coordinate and be 
        responsible for sunset reviews conducted by the agencies.

SEC. 3. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.

    A covered rule shall be subject to review in accordance with this 
Act. Upon completion of such review, the agency which has jurisdiction 
over such rule shall--
          (1) issue a final report under section 8(c)(2) continuing 
        such rule, or
          (2) conduct a rulemaking in accordance with section 8(d) to 
        modify, consolidate with another rule, or terminate such rule.

SEC. 4. RULES COVERED.

    (a) Covered Rules.--For purposes of this Act, a covered rule is a 
rule that--
          (1) is determined by the Administrator to be a significant 
        rule under subsection (b); or
          (2) is any other rule designated by the agency which has 
        jurisdiction over such rule or the Administrator under this Act 
        for sunset review.
    (b) Significant Rules.--For purposes of this Act, a significant 
rule is a rule that the Administrator determines--
          (1) has resulted in or is likely to result in an annual 
        effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
          (2) is a major rule, as that term is defined in Executive 
        Order 12291 (as in effect on the first date that Executive 
        order was in effect); or
          (3) was issued pursuant to a significant regulatory action, 
        as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866 (as in effect 
        on the first date that Executive order was in effect).
    (c) Public Petitions.--
          (1) In general.--Any person adversely affected by a rule that 
        is not a significant rule may submit a petition to the agency 
        which has jurisdiction over the rule requesting that such 
        agency designate the rule for sunset review. Such agency shall 
        designate the rule for sunset review unless such agency 
        determines that it would not be in the public interest to 
        conduct a sunset review of the rule. In making such 
        determination, such agency shall take into account the number 
        and nature of other petitions received on the same rule, 
        whether or not they have already been denied.
          (2) Form and content of petition.--A petition under paragraph 
        (1)--
                  (A) shall be in writing, but is not otherwise 
                required to be in any particular form;
                  (B) shall identify the rule for which sunset review 
                is requested with reasonable specificity and state on 
                its face that the petitioner seeks sunset review of the 
                rule; and
                  (C) shall be accompanied by a $20 processing fee.
          (3) Response required for noncomplying petitions.--If such 
        agency determines that a petition does not meet the 
        requirements of this subsection, such agency shall provide a 
        response to the petitioner within 30 days after receiving the 
        petition, notifying the petitioner of the problem and providing 
        information on how to formulate a petition that meets those 
        requirements.
          (4) Decision within 90 days.--Within the 90-day period 
        beginning on the date of receiving a petition that meets the 
        requirements of this subsection, such agency shall transmit a 
        response to the petitioner stating whether the petition was 
        granted or denied, except that such agency may extend such 
        period by a total of not more than 30 days.
          (5) Petitions deemed granted for substantial inexcusable 
        delay.--A petition for sunset review of a rule is deemed to 
        have been granted by such agency, and such agency is deemed to 
        have designated the rule for sunset review, if a court finds 
        there is a substantial and inexcusable delay, beyond the period 
        specified in paragraph (4), in notifying the petitioner of such 
        agency's determination to grant or deny the petition.
          (6) Public log.--Such agency shall maintain a public log of 
        petitions submitted under this subsection, that includes the 
        status or disposition of each petition.
    (d) Congressional Requests.--
          (1) In general.--An appropriate committee of the Congress, or 
        a majority of the majority party members or a majority of 
        nonmajority party members of such a committee, may request in 
        writing that the Administrator designate any rule that is not a 
        significant rule for sunset review. The Administrator shall 
        designate such rule for sunset review within 30 days after 
        receipt of such a request unless the Administrator determines 
        that it would not be in the public interest to conduct a sunset 
        review of such rule.
          (2) Notice of denial.--If the Administrator denies a 
        congressional request under this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall transmit to the congressional committee making the 
        request a notice stating the reasons for the denial.
    (e) Publication of Notice of Designation for Sunset Review.--After 
designating a rule under subsection (c) or (d) for sunset review, the 
agency or the Administrator shall promptly publish a notice of that 
designation in the Federal Register.

SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR SUNSET REVIEW.

    (a) Compliance With Other Laws.--In order for any rule subject to 
sunset review to continue without change or to be modified or 
consolidated in accordance with this Act, such rule must be authorized 
by law and meet all applicable requirements that would apply if it were 
issued as a new rule pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States 
Code, or other statutory rulemaking procedures required for that rule. 
For purposes of this section, the term ``applicable requirements'' 
includes any requirement for cost-benefit analysis and any requirement 
for standardized risk analysis and risk assessment.
    (b) Governing Law.--If there is a conflict between such applicable 
requirements and an Act under which a rule was issued, the conflict 
shall be resolved in the same manner as such conflict would be resolved 
if the agency were issuing a new rule.

SEC. 6. SUNSET REVIEW PROCEDURES.

    (a) Functions of the Administrator.--
          (1) Notice of rules subject to review.--
                  (A) Inventory and first list.--Within 6 months after 
                the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
                Administrator shall conduct an inventory of existing 
                rules and publish a first list of covered rules. The 
                list shall--
                          (i) specify the particular group to which 
                        each significant rule is assigned under 
                        paragraph (2), and state the review deadline 
                        for all significant rules in each such group; 
                        and
                          (ii) include other rules subject to sunset 
                        review for any other reason, and state the 
                        review deadline for each such rule.
                  (B) Subsequent lists.--After publication of the first 
                list under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall 
                publish an updated list of covered rules at least 
                annually, specifying the review deadline for each rule 
                on the list.
        (2) Grouping of significant rules in first list.--
                  (A) Staggered review.--The Administrator shall assign 
                each significant rule in effect on the date of 
                enactment of this Act to one of 4 groups established by 
                the Administrator to permit orderly and prioritized 
                sunset reviews, and specify for each group an initial 
                review deadline in accordance with section 7(a)(1).
                  (B) Prioritizations.--In determining which rules 
                shall be given priority in time in that assignment, the 
                Administrator shall consult with appropriate agencies, 
                and shall prioritize rules based on--
                          (i) the grouping of related rules in 
                        accordance with paragraph (3);
                          (ii) the extent of the cost of each rule on 
                        the regulated community and the public, with 
                        priority in time given to those rules that 
                        impose the greatest cost;
                          (iii) consideration of the views of regulated 
                        persons, including State and local governments;
                          (iv) whether a particular rule has recently 
                        been subject to cost/benefit analysis and risk 
                        assessment, with priority in time given to 
                        those rules that have not been subject to such 
                        analysis and assessment;
                          (v) whether a particular rule was issued 
                        under a statutory provision that provides 
                        relatively greater discretion to an official in 
                        issuing the rule, with priority in time given 
                        to those rules that were issued under 
                        provisions that provide relatively greater 
                        discretion;
                          (vi) the burden of reviewing each rule on the 
                        reviewing agency; and
                          (vii) the need for orderly processing and the 
                        timely completion of the sunset reviews of 
                        existing rules.
          (3) Grouping of related rules.--The Administrator shall group 
        related rules under paragraph (2) (and designate other rules) 
        for simultaneous sunset review based upon their subject matter 
        similarity, functional interrelationships, and other relevant 
        factors to ensure comprehensive and coordinated review of 
        redundant, overlapping, and conflicting rules and requirements. 
        The Administrator shall ensure simultaneous sunset reviews of 
        covered rules without regard to whether they were issued by the 
        same agency, and shall designate any other rule for sunset 
        review that is necessary for a comprehensive sunset review 
        whether or not such other rule is otherwise a covered rule 
        under this Act.
          (4) Guidance.--The Administrator shall provide timely 
        guidance to agencies on the conduct of sunset reviews and the 
        preparation of sunset review notices and reports required by 
        this Act to ensure uniform, complete, and timely sunset reviews 
        and to ensure notice and opportunity for public comment 
        consistent with section 8.
          (5) Review and evaluation of reports.--The Administrator 
        shall review and evaluate each preliminary and final report 
        submitted by the agency pursuant to this section. Within 90 
        days after receiving a preliminary report, the Administrator 
        shall transmit comments to the head of the agency regarding--
                  (A) the quality of the analysis in the report, 
                including whether the agency has properly applied 
                section 5;
                  (B) the consistency of the agency's proposed action 
                with actions of other agencies; and
                  (C) whether the rule should be continued without 
                change, modified, consolidated with another rule, or 
                terminated.
    (b) Agency Sunset Review Procedure.--
          (1) Sunset review notice.--At least 2\1/2\ years before the 
        review deadline under section 7(a) for a covered rule issued by 
        an agency, the agency shall--
                  (A) publish a sunset review notice in accordance with 
                section 8(a) in the Federal Register and, to the extent 
                reasonable and practicable, in other publications or 
                media that are designed to reach those persons most 
                affected by the covered rule; and
                  (B) request the views of the Administrator and the 
                appropriate committees of the Congress on whether to 
                continue without change, modify, consolidate, or 
                terminate the covered rule.
          (2) Preliminary report.--In reviewing a covered rule, the 
        agency shall--
                  (A) consider public comments and other 
                recommendations generated by a sunset review notice 
                under paragraph (1); and
                  (B) at least 1 year before the review deadline under 
                section 7(a) for the covered rule, publish in the 
                Federal Register, in accordance with section 8(b), and 
                transmit to the Administrator and the appropriate 
                committees of the Congress a preliminary report.
          (3) Final report.--The agency shall consider the public 
        comments and other recommendations generated by the preliminary 
        report under paragraph (2) for a covered rule, and shall 
        consult with the appropriate committees of the Congress before 
        issuing a final report. At least 90 days before the review 
        deadline of the covered rule, the agency shall publish in the 
        Federal Register, in accordance with section 8(c)(2) or 8(d), 
        and transmit a final report to the Administrator and the 
        appropriate committees of the Congress.
          (4) Open procedures regarding sunset review.--In any sunset 
        review conducted pursuant to this Act, the agency conducting 
        the review shall make a written record describing the subject 
        of all contacts the agency or Administrator made with non-
        governmental persons outside the agency relating to such 
        review. The written record of such contact shall be made 
        available, upon request, to the public.
    (c) Effectiveness of Agency Recommendation.--If a final report 
under subsection (b)(3) recommends that a covered rule should be 
continued without change, the covered rule shall be continued. If a 
final report under subsection (b)(3) recommends that a covered rule 
should be modified, consolidated with another rule, or terminated, the 
rule may be modified, so consolidated, or terminated in accordance with 
section 8(d).
    (d) Preservation of Independence of Federal Bank Regulatory 
Agencies.--The head of any appropriate Federal banking agency (as that 
term is defined in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
(12 U.S.C. 1813(q)), the Federal Housing Finance Board, the National 
Credit Union Administration, and the Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight shall have the authority with respect to that 
agency that would otherwise be granted under section 7(a)(2)(B) to the 
Administrator or other officer designated by the President.

SEC. 7. REVIEW DEADLINES FOR COVERED RULES.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, the review deadline of a 
covered rule is as follows:
          (1) Existing significant rules.--For a significant rule in 
        effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, the initial 
        review deadline is the last day of the 4-year, 5-year, 6-year, 
        or 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, as specified by the Administrator under section 
        6(a)(2)(A). For any significant rule that 6 months after the 
        date of enactment is not assigned to such a group specified 
        under section 6(a)(2)(A), the initial review deadline is the 
        last day of the 4-year period beginning on the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
          (2) New significant rules.--For a significant rule that first 
        takes effect after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
        initial review deadline is the last day of either--
                  (A) the 3-year period beginning on the date the rule 
                takes effect, or
                  (B) if the Administrator determines as part of the 
                rulemaking process that the rule is issued pursuant to 
                negotiated rulemaking procedures or that compliance 
                with the rule requires substantial capital investment, 
                the 7-year period beginning on the date the rule takes 
                effect.
          (3) Rules covered pursuant to public petition or 
        congressional request.--For any rule subject to sunset review 
        pursuant to a public petition under section 4(c) or a 
        congressional request under section 4(d), the initial review 
        deadline is the last day of the 3-year period beginning on--
                  (A) the date the agency or Administrator so 
                designates the rule for review; or
                  (B) the date of issuance of a final court order that 
                the agency is deemed to have designated the rule for 
                sunset review.
          (4) Related rule designated for review.--For a rule that the 
        Administrator designates under section 6(a)(3) for sunset 
        review because it is related to another covered rule and that 
        is grouped with that other rule for simultaneous review, the 
        initial review deadline is the same as the review deadline for 
        that other rule.
    (b) Temporary Extension.--The review deadline under subsection (a) 
for a covered rule may be extended by the Administrator for not more 
than 6 months by publishing notice thereof in the Federal Register that 
describes reasons why the temporary extension is necessary to respond 
to or prevent an emergency situation.
    (c) Determinations Where Rules Have Been Amended.--For purposes of 
this Act, if various provisions of a covered rule were issued at 
different times, then the rule as a whole shall be treated as if it 
were issued on the later of--
          (1) the date of issuance of the provision of the rule that 
        was issued first; or
          (2) the date the most recent review and revision of the rule 
        under this Act was completed.

SEC. 8. SUNSET REVIEW NOTICES AND AGENCY REPORTS.

    (a) Sunset Review Notices.--The sunset review notice under section 
6(b)(1) for a rule shall--
          (1) request comments regarding whether the rule should be 
        continued without change, modified, consolidated with another 
        rule, or terminated;
          (2) if applicable, request comments regarding whether the 
        rule meets the applicable Federal cost/benefit and risk 
        assessment criteria; and
          (3) solicit comments about the past implementation and 
        effects of the rule, including--
                  (A) the direct and indirect costs incurred because of 
                the rule, including the net reduction in the value of 
                private property (whether real, personal, tangible, or 
                intangible), and whether the incremental benefits of 
                the rule exceeded the incremental costs of the rule, 
                both generally and regarding each of the specific 
                industries and sectors it covers;
                  (B) whether the rule as a whole, or any major feature 
                of it, is outdated, obsolete, or unnecessary, whether 
                by change of technology, the marketplace, or otherwise;
                  (C) the extent to which the rule or information 
                required to comply with the rule duplicated, 
                conflicted, or overlapped with requirements under rules 
                of other agencies;
                  (D) in the case of a rule addressing a risk to health 
                or safety or the environment, what the perceived risk 
                was at the time of issuance and to what extent the risk 
                predictions were accurate;
                  (E) whether the rule unnecessarily impeded domestic 
                or international competition or unnecessarily intruded 
                on free market forces, and whether the rule 
                unnecessarily interfered with opportunities or efforts 
                to transfer to the private sector duties carried out by 
                the Government;
                  (F) whether, and to what extent, the rule imposed 
                unfunded mandates on, or otherwise affected, State and 
                local governments;
                  (G) whether compliance with the rule required 
                substantial capital investment and whether terminating 
                the rule on the next review deadline would create an 
                unfair advantage to those who are not in compliance 
                with it;
                  (H) whether the rule constituted the least cost 
                method of achieving its objective consistent with the 
                criteria of the Act under which the rule was issued, 
                and to what extent the rule provided flexibility to 
                those who were subject to it;
                  (I) whether the rule was worded simply and clearly, 
                including clear identification of those who were 
                subject to the rule;
                  (J) whether the rule created negative unintended 
                consequences;
                  (K) the extent to which information requirements 
                under the rule can be reduced; and
                  (L) the extent to which the rule has contributed 
                positive benefits, particularly health or safety or 
                environmental benefits.
    (b) Preliminary Reports on Sunset Reviews.--The preliminary report 
under section 6(b)(2) on the sunset review of a rule shall request 
public comments and contain--
          (1) specific requests for factual findings and recommended 
        legal conclusions regarding the application of section 5 to the 
        rule, the continued need for the rule, and whether the rule 
        duplicates functions of another rule;
          (2) a request for comments on whether the rule should be 
        continued without change, modified, consolidated with another 
        rule, or terminated; and
          (3) if consolidation or modification of the rule is 
        recommended, suggestions for the proposed text of the 
        consolidated or modified rule.
    (c) Final Reports on Sunset Reviews.--The report under section 
6(b)(3) on the sunset review of a rule shall--
          (1) contain the factual findings and legal conclusions of the 
        agency conducting the review regarding the application of 
        section 5 to the rule and the agency's proposed recommendation 
        as to whether the rule should be continued without change, 
        modified, consolidated with another rule, or terminated;
          (2) in the case of a rule that the agency proposes to 
        continue without change, so state;
          (3) in the case of a rule that the agency proposes to modify 
        or consolidate with another rule, contain--
                  (A) a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553 
                of title 5, United States Code or under other statutory 
                rulemaking procedures required for that rule, and
                  (B) the text of the rule as so modified or 
                consolidated; and
          (4) in the case of a rule that the agency proposes to 
        terminate, contain a notice of proposed rulemaking for 
        termination consistent with paragraph (3)(A).
A final report described in paragraph (2) shall be published in the 
Federal Register.
    (d) Rulemaking.--The final report under subsection (c)(3) or (c)(4) 
shall be published in the Federal Register and its publication shall 
constitute publication of the notice required by subsection (c)(3)(A). 
After publication of the final report under subsection (c)(3) or (c)(4) 
on a sunset review of a rule, the agency which conducted such review 
shall conduct the rulemaking which is called for in such report.

SEC. 9. DESIGNATION OF AGENCY REGULATORY REVIEW OFFICERS.

    The head of each agency shall designate an officer of the agency as 
the Regulatory Review Officer of the agency. The Regulatory Review 
Officer of an agency shall be responsible for the implementation of 
this Act by the agency and shall report directly to the head of the 
agency and the Administrator with respect to that responsibility.

SEC. 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW; SEVERABILITY.

    (a) Relationship to APA.--Nothing in this Act is intended to 
supersede the provisions of chapters 5, 6, and 7 of title 5, United 
States Code.
    (b) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or the application 
of any provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held 
invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or 
circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected 
thereby.

SEC. 11. EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF A COVERED RULE.

    (a) Effect of Termination, Generally.--If a covered rule is 
terminated pursuant to this Act--
          (1) this Act shall not be construed to prevent the President 
        or an agency from exercising any authority that otherwise 
        exists to implement the statute under which the rule was 
        issued;
          (2) in an agency proceeding or court action between an agency 
        and a non-agency party, the rule shall be given no conclusive 
        legal effect but may be submitted as evidence of prior agency 
        practice and procedure; and
          (3) this Act shall not be construed to prevent the 
        continuation or institution of any enforcement action that is 
        based on a violation of the rule that occurred before the 
        effectiveness of the rule terminated.
    (b) Effect on Deadlines.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), any deadline 
        for, relating to, or involving any action dependent upon, any 
        rule terminated under this Act is suspended until the agency 
        that issued the rule issues a new rule on the same matter, 
        unless otherwise provided by a law.
          (2) Deadline defined.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``deadline'' means any date certain for fulfilling any 
        obligation or exercising any authority established by or under 
        any Federal rule, or by or under any court order implementing 
        any Federal rule.

SEC. 12. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    (a) In General.--A denial or substantial inexcusable delay in 
granting or denying a petition under section 4(c) shall be considered 
final agency action subject to review under section 702 of title 5, 
United States Code. A denial of a congressional request under section 
4(d) shall not be subject to judicial review.
    (b) Time Limitation on Filing a Civil Action.--Notwithstanding any 
other provisions of law, an action seeking judicial review of a final 
agency action under this Act may not be brought--
          (1) in the case of a final agency action denying a public 
        petition under section 4(c) or continuing without change, 
        modifying, consolidating, or terminating a covered rule, more 
        than 30 days after the date of that agency action; or
          (2) in the case of an action challenging a delay in deciding 
        on a petition for a rule under section 4(c), more than 1 year 
        after the period applicable to the rule under section 4(c)(4).
    (c) Availability of Judicial Review Unaffected.--Except to the 
extent that there is a direct conflict with the provisions of this Act, 
nothing in this Act is intended to affect the availability or standard 
of judicial review for agency regulatory action.

SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
          (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
        Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.
          (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
          (3) Appropriate committee of the congress.--The term 
        ``appropriate committee of the Congress'' means, with respect 
        to a rule, each standing committee of Congress having authority 
        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.
          (4) Rule.--
                  (A) General rule.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
                term ``rule'' means any agency statement of general 
                applicability and future effect, including agency 
                guidance documents, designed to implement, interpret, 
                or prescribe law or policy, or describing the 
                procedures or practices of an agency, or intended to 
                assist in such actions, but does not include--
                          (i) regulations or other agency statements 
                        issued in accordance with formal rulemaking 
                        provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5, 
                        United States Code, or in accordance with other 
                        statutory formal rulemaking procedures required 
                        for such regulations or statements;
                          (ii) regulations or other agency statements 
                        that are limited to agency organization, 
                        management, or personnel matters;
                          (iii) regulations or other agency statements 
                        issued with respect to a military or foreign 
                        affairs function of the United States;
                          (iv) regulations, statements, or other agency 
                        actions that are reviewed and usually modified 
                        each year (or more frequently), or are reviewed 
                        regularly and usually modified based on 
                        changing economic or seasonal conditions;
                          (v) regulations or other agency actions that 
                        grant an approval, license, permit, 
                        registration, or similar authority or that 
                        grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a 
                        restriction, or any agency action necessary to 
                        permit new or improved applications of 
                        technology or to allow the manufacture, 
                        distribution, sale, or use of a substance or 
                        product; and
                          (vi) regulations or other agency statements 
                        that the Administrator certifies in writing are 
                        necessary for the enforcement of the Federal 
                        criminal laws.
                  (B) Scope of a rule.--For purposes of this Act, each 
                set of rules designated in the Code of Federal 
                Regulations as a part shall be treated as one rule. 
                Each set of rules that do not appear in the Code of 
                Federal Regulations and that are comparable to a part 
                of that Code under guidelines established by the 
                Administrator shall be treated as one rule.
          (5) Sunset review.--The term ``sunset review'' means a review 
        of a rule under this Act.

SEC. 14. SUNSET OF THIS ACT.

    This Act shall have no force or effect after the 10-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 994, ``The Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995,'' 
provides the framework for a scheduled reexamination of 
regulations (i.e., ``rules'') in an effort to eliminate or 
change those which no longer achieve the purpose for which they 
were issued. Further, it requires existing rules to be analyzed 
to ensure that they are authorized by law and that they conform 
to the requirements which would apply if they were issued as 
new rules.
    The Act requires agencies periodically to review all 
significant rules (and other rules designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs) for possible modification, consolidation or 
termination. It also establishes a petition process by which 
the public and certain committees of Congress may request 
agencies to review other rules for the same purpose. For rules 
which are proposed for change or termination, this ``sunset 
review'' procedure is a prelude to the notice and comment 
process traditionally applied under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.

                BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    Rulemaking by federal administrative agencies is one of the 
most important functions of the U.S. government. It delineates, 
clarifies, and refines Congress' work-product; it determines, 
to a very large extent, the specific legal obligations of 
individuals and regulated entities.
    The history of rulemaking in the United States extends back 
to the first Congress, though bureaucracies with substantial 
organizational resources did not emerge until the end of the 
nineteenth century. The first modern regulatory agency, the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, was created in 1887 to regulate 
American railroads. In 1906, Congress enacted the Pure Food and 
Drug Act and created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914. 
Today, the federal regulatory landscape is a vast field of 
acronyms (i.e., FDA, FTC, FCC, SEC, EPA, OSHA, CPSC, et al.) 
and federal regulation seems all-encompassing.
    In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act 
(the ``APA'') 1 which established the basic framework of 
administrative law governing agency action, including 
rulemaking. The APA was the product of the struggle between 
interests that supported the programs of the New Deal and those 
that were concerned about the power given agencies during that 
period. The APA established minimum procedural requirements 
applicable to many types of agency proceedings--i.e., 
rulemakings (both formal and informal) and adjudications. The 
APA was intended to assure due process in the administrative 
law sphere for affected parties (individuals, small businesses, 
corporations, and State and local governments).
    \1\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551-559, 701-706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the 1970's, however, the continued expansion of the 
number of federal agencies, the scope of their statutory 
mandates, and the rules by which they regulated business 
generated a new round of criticism. Since then, five 
consecutive U.S. presidents have attempted to impose some 
restrictive criteria on the agency rulemaking process. In 1974 
and 1976 respectively, President Ford imposed an ``Inflationary 
Impact Analysis'' on regulations, and then an ``Economic Impact 
Analysis'' on the rulemaking process. 2 In 1978, President 
Carter called for ``Economic Impact Statements'' on 
regulations, 3 and in 1981, President Reagan in his order 
on ``Federal Regulation'' required that a regulatory impact 
analysis be completed on all major rules before they could be 
issued. 4 The Reagan Executive Order greatly emphasized 
cost/benefit analysis and directed agencies (to the extent 
permitted by law) not to promulgate rules unless the potential 
benefits to society outweigh the potential costs. Most 
recently, in 1993, President Clinton imposed a ``Regulatory 
Planning Review'' on the rulemaking process. 5 Each of 
these executive orders were directed at evaluating and limiting 
the dramatic growth of federal regulations.
    \2\ Executive Order No. 11821, 3 C.F.R. 926 (1971-1975 compilation) 
and Executive Order No. 11949, 3 C.F.R. 161 (1976).
    \3\ Executive Order No. 12044, 43 Fed. Reg. 12661 (1978).
    \4\ Executive Order No. 12291, 3 C.F.R. 127 (1981). President Bush 
continued to enforce Executive Order 12291 during his Administration.
    \5\ Executive Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to the inherent limited authority of executive orders 
and the belief that the executive branch had failed to 
effectively discipline the rulemaking process, legislative 
efforts to curb the growth of federal regulations were 
initiated in the 1970's and 1980's. For example, on two 
occasions in the early 1980's, the House Judiciary Committee 
acted favorably on comprehensive regulatory reform legislation. 
These bills were: the ``Regulation Reform Act of 1980'' (H.R. 
3263; H.Rept. 96-1393) and the ``Regulatory Procedure Act of 
1982'' (H.R. 746; H. Rept. 97-435). Both of these proposals 
would have amended the Administrative Procedure Act so as to 
make regulations more cost effective, to improve regulatory 
planning and management, and to ensure periodic review of 
existing rules. The review of rules provisions contained in 
those bills are particularly relevant to our consideration of 
H.R. 994, because they required each agency to establish a 
schedule for the review of each ``major rule'' within its 
jurisdiction within six months after the date of enactment. 
Agencies were required to set dates for the completion of such 
reviews; no review date could be set more than 10 years after 
the publication of the final review schedule.
    In this Congress, as part of the Republican ``Contract with 
America,'' the Judiciary Committee acted favorably on the 
``Regulatory Reform and Relief Act'' (H.R. 926). That measure, 
which passed the House of Representatives by a 415 to 15 vote, 
amended the existing Regulatory Flexibility Act so as to allow 
judicial review in certain circumstances and required that 
agencies complete a regulatory impact analysis when 
promulgating major rules. Those provisions were subsequently 
included in the ``Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 
1995'' (H.R. 9).
    Despite two decades of Presidential efforts to slow the 
proliferation of federal regulations, the total number of rules 
in effect grows each year. For example, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that it reviews 
approximately 1,300 final rules for issuance each year. 
Consequently, H.R. 994 is directed at reducing the number of 
duplicative or unnecessary regulations now on the books and at 
discouraging unnecessary rules in the future.
    Specifically, H.R. 994 establishes a sunset review process 
by which existing rules may be revised or terminated. The Act 
requires the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB to identify significant and 
other federal rules for inclusion in the review process. Each 
such rule is scheduled for review within either four, five, six 
or seven years from enactment of the Act. The legislation also 
provides a petition process through which the public or 
appropriate committees of Congress may request that additional 
rules be scheduled for review.
    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to which 
H.R. 994 was also referred, reported the bill with amendments. 
This Committee has included many of those provisions in its 
amendment. However, the Judiciary Committee felt that the 
sunset review process would be strengthened and further 
legitimized by specifically requiring the application of the 
procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    Currently, regulations are proposed, adopted, amended, and 
terminated under the procedure governed by the APA. H.R. 994 as 
reported by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee would 
allow for major changes in rules or the termination of existing 
rules without going through this process. The Judiciary 
Committee determined that the sunset review process should be 
conducted consistent with the APA.
    The APA was enacted in 1946 so as to enable outside 
affected parties--individuals, businesses, unions, and non-
profit groups--to have an opportunity for input into the 
formulation of federal regulations before they were adopted. 
For 50 years the APA has meant ``due process'' in federal 
administrative law, and we have 50 years of court 
interpretations of its provisions.
    The core rulemaking procedures of the APA remain the same 
today as they appeared in 1946. The Act brought consistency and 
regularity to the issuance of federal rules, and gave the 
public a voice in the development of these non-statutory legal 
requirements. The benefits of this single minimum procedural 
code, binding on all agencies, are substantial. At the very 
least, the APA simplifies government and assures adequate 
protection for private rights. It makes it easier for 
individuals to deal with the many different agencies of the 
government and to ascertain their procedural rights and the 
various agencies' procedural duties. It avoids the duplication 
of effort that is involved when each agency independently 
solves procedural problems common to them all. But perhaps the 
most important role of the APA is to serve as a guide to and 
check upon administrative officials in the exercise of their 
discretionary powers. No more satisfactory way can be found of 
minimizing abuses and instilling public confidence in the 
legitimacy of the process under which their rights are defined. 
Due to that legal history, the public and the business 
community, in particular, are aware of their rights and 
obligations under federal rulemaking procedure, and of the 
availability of judicial review regarding specific agency 
determinations.
    The APA is ``user friendly'' because its requirements and 
procedures are well understood by the agencies and by outside, 
affected parties as well. The statute specifies each step of 
the rulemaking process in considerable detail, and the courts 
have extensively interpreted the meaning of its terms and 
provisions.
    For example, the requirements of what has to go into a 
``notice of proposed rulemaking'' are clear. It delineates with 
precision the scope of the proceeding and the factors which 
will be considered therein.
    There is simply no good reason to conduct the sunset review 
process outside the parameters of the APA. If H.R. 994 were to 
create an alternative process with respect to public notice and 
comment, that would not ensure the participation of the public 
in the same manner as provided under the APA. The APA requires 
that the agency respond to every substantive issue raised in 
the public comments. This is much different from a mere 
requirement that the decisionmaker ``consider'' public 
comments.
    The establishment of the sunset review process outside of 
the normal APA process would lead to an inconsistency in 
treatment for rules that are newly promulgated and those that 
are already in effect. This is directly contrary to the stated 
goal of H.R. 994, which is to ensure that existing rules 
continue only if they meet all the requirements now applicable 
to the issuance of new rules.
    Due to the similarities in terminology between the sunset 
review and the APA, there will naturally be debate as to 
whether the meaning given those terms under the APA applies to 
provisions of the sunset review process as reported by the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The uncertainty this 
creates will undoubtedly lead to lawsuits challenging the 
interpretation of particular words, clauses and provisions. As 
with all ancillary litigation, this will serve to delay the 
implementation of sunset review, thereby negating the benefits 
of the legislation's ``streamlining'' intent. It creates the 
very real risk that courts will interpret the sunset review 
procedure in a manner vastly different from, and inconsistent, 
with requirements under the APA. Judicial review of both 
procedural and substantive rulings under sunset reform will 
thus interject another opportunity for disruption and delay. By 
contrast, the standards of review under the APA are well 
settled, clear and understood.
    In order to conform the sunset review process with the 
public notice and comment procedures of the APA, in the 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde offered an en bloc amendment 
that was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. The principal 
thrust of the Hyde amendment was to insure that prior to any 
change in a rule or termination of a rule, the normal APA 
rulemaking process would be utilized. Thus, as reported by the 
Judiciary Committee, there could be no automatic termination of 
a covered rule. Instead, to the extent a rule was proposed for 
change or termination, a rulemaking procedure would be required 
at the conclusion of the sunset review process.
    Consistent with this change, the Committee replaced the 
term ``termination date'' with ``review deadline'' throughout 
the bill. This makes it clear that the end result of the sunset 
review process will either be the issuance of a notice of 
proposed rulemaking or a sunset review report concluding that 
no change in the rule is required. Instead, the review deadline 
is the time by which the agency must propose to continue, 
modify, consolidate with another rule, or terminate a rule. If 
the rule is to be modified, consolidated or terminated, the 
agency must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and conduct 
a rulemaking proceeding under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
    Second, the Judiciary Committee amendment provides that a 
public petition for review of a rule will be reviewed by the 
agency which promulgated the rule. The Committee believes that 
the agency is better suited than the Administrator of OIRA to 
make this determination, because the agency has the expertise 
and familiarity with its own rules, and can better weigh the 
impact of review of the rule on agency operations.
    This amendment also brings the public petition process in 
conformance with the analogous provision of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 553(e), in that it internalizes the petition process 
within the agency. The APA provision allows the public to 
petition an agency for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 
current rule. H.R. 994 expands on this right by requiring that 
the agency respond to the petition within a particular time 
frame.
    Third, the Judiciary Committee amendment alters the 
standard of review under which the agency, in the case of 
public petitions, or the Administrator, in the case of 
Congressional petitions, must decide whether a rule should be 
designated for sunset review. It does this by applying the 
standard of ``in the public interest.'' The Committee was 
concerned that an ``unreasonable'' standard would not afford 
the agencies and the Administrator with sufficient discretion 
regarding public and Congressional petition requests.
    In applying a public interest test, consideration will be 
given to a variety of factors, including the agency's available 
resources and whether granting a petition or petitions will 
interfere with their ability to review regulations of real 
concern. Thus, it might not be ``unreasonable'' to request that 
a particular rule be included for review, but its inclusion 
might not be ``in the public interest.''
    It is important that the sunset review process result in 
real substantive change that will withstand court challenge. 
The Judiciary Committee amendments will ensure this, while at 
the same time guaranteeing meaningful public participation in 
the process.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    When it was first introduced, H.R. 994 was referred to both 
the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee 
because of its jurisdiction under House rule X(j)(2) with 
respect to administrative practice and procedure, which 
includes the Administrative Procedure Act and the federal 
regulatory process in general.
    The Government Reform and Oversight Committee reported H.R. 
994 with amendments on July 18, 1995. Its committee report was 
filed on October 19. At that point, the Parliamentarian 
extended the Judiciary Committee's original referral until 
November 3, 1995.
    On October 31, 1995, the Committee met in open session to 
consider the bill for markup. An en bloc amendment was offered 
by Chairman Hyde to make H.R. 994 consistent with the standard 
Federal rulemaking procedures set forth in the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). The bill, as reported by the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, would codify a review and 
sunset procedure, but it would do so outside the framework of 
the APA. The Hyde amendment conforms this sunset review process 
with the public notice and comment requirements of the existing 
APA. Consequently, no rule could be amended or terminated 
unless the agency goes through the normal public notice and 
comment requirements of the APA. Under the Hyde amendment, the 
sunset review procedure will identify those rules that should 
be altered, consolidated or in fact terminated, and the ``tried 
and true'' procedures of the APA will be the final step in 
implementing that result. The Hyde en bloc amendment was 
adopted by unanimous voice vote. The Committee also adopted by 
voice vote an amendment by Mr. Conyers, which would require an 
agency conducting a sunset review to identify and make public 
the subject of all contacts made with non-governmental persons 
relating to the review.

                         VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

    The Committee on the Judiciary met in open session on 
October 31, 1995. After adopting two amendments by voice vote, 
it ordered H.R. 994, as amended, favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by voice vote.

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 994, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 3, 1995.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 994, the Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 
1995, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on October 31, 1995. We estimate that enactment of 
this bill would result in additional costs to the federal 
government of at least $4 million annually, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary funds. This estimate assumes the 
Administration would use the broad discretion it would be 
granted under the bill to decide which regulations need to have 
a sunset review and that an average of at least 50 regulations 
would undergo such reviews each year.
    The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to H.R. 
994.
    Bill purpose: H.R. 994 would require the Administrator of 
the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to categorize all existing 
regulations that would be covered by this bill into one of four 
groups. Regulations in each group would be subject to a sunset 
review to determine whether rules should be altered or 
terminated. Regulations in the first group would have to be 
reviewed four years after enactment of H.R. 994. Regulations in 
groups two through four would have to be reviewed in the fifth, 
sixth, and seventh years following enactment of H.R. 994. New 
regulations that would be covered by the bill would have to be 
reviewed three years after they take effect, but certain new 
rules that involve either negotiated rulemakings or large 
capital investments would not require review for seven years.
    H.R. 994 would apply to all existing regulations and future 
new rules that are estimated to have an annual impact on the 
economy of $100 million or more, or would:
          Result in a major increase in costs or prices for 
        consumers, industries, governments, or geographic 
        regions;
          Have significant adverse effects on competition, 
        employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or 
        international competitiveness of U.S. enterprises;
          Change the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
        user fees, or loan programs; or
          Have an adverse affect on the environment, public 
        health, or safety.
    Moreover, Congressional committees and citizens could 
petition federal agencies to request that other rules be 
reviewed according to the procedures specified in this bill. If 
the agencies find such petitions to be in the public interest, 
then they would also carry out the sunset reviews requested by 
these petitions.
    Starting two and one-half years before the expiration of 
any rule, agencies would have to issue notice to the public and 
to the Congress of the sunset review, and would solicit 
comments concerning the cost and effectiveness of the rule. The 
agencies would then make preliminary and final reports on 
whether to extend, modify, or consolidate the rule, and would 
respond to public and Congressional comments.
    H.R. 994 does not require that all existing or new rules be 
subject to a cost/benefit test or risk assessment review. Under 
section 5 of the bill, however, cost/benefit analyses and risk 
assessment reviews would be required to extend, modify, or 
consolidate existing rules if subsequent legislation were to 
require this kind of regulatory analysis for all new rules.
    Section 13 of H.R. 994 would exclude a rule from the sunset 
provisions if it:
          Relates to a military or foreign affair function of 
        the United States;
          Concerns agency organization, management, or 
        personnel matters;
          Is reviewed and usually modified each year (or more 
        frequently), or if it is reviewed regularly and usually 
        modified based on changing economic or seasonal 
        conditions;
          Grants an approval, license, permit, registration, or 
        similar authority; grants or recognizes an exemption or 
        relieves a restriction; is necessary to permit new or 
        improved applications of technology; allows the 
        manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of a substance 
        or product; or
          Is necessary for the enforcement of a Federal 
        criminal law.
    Estimated budgetary impact: Existing formal regulations are 
collected in about 6,800 parts of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR). Approximately 1,400 parts of the CFR would 
be exempt from review because they relate to agency 
organization, management, personnel matters, or the military or 
foreign affairs functions of the government. We estimate that 
most of the remaining 5,400 parts of the CFR would not be 
covered by this bill, because they are already regularly 
reviewed, are necessary to enforce Federal Criminal laws, or 
involve approvals, licenses, permits and registrations. The 
Administration would have broad discretion in determining which 
rules would be covered by the provisions of H.R. 994 and, thus, 
in deciding how many reviews would be conducted.
    Enacting H.R. 994 would increase federal costs, subject to 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, because the bill would 
require agencies to conduct regulatory reviews that they do not 
perform under current law. While the number of sunset reviews 
that would be conducted under the bill is uncertain, CBO 
believes that relatively few sunset reviews would be required 
because the Administration would have broad discretion over 
choosing rules for review, and in deciding which rules would be 
exempt from review.
    Based on information from regulatory agencies, CBO believes 
that the average cost of reviewing an individual rule, as 
required by H.R. 994, would be small. We estimate that for most 
rules the cost of publishing a sunset review notice, soliciting 
public comments, and making preliminary and final 
recommendations in response to these comments would average 
about $75,000 per review. CBO cannot predict how the 
Administration would use discretion granted under this bill to 
determine which rules should have a sunset review, but assuming 
that an average of at least 50 rules would be reviewed 
annually, we estimate the bill would cost at least $4 million 
per year.
    Previous estimate: On August 14, 1995, CBO prepared a cost 
estimate for H.R. 994 as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on July 18, 1995. 
CBO estimated that the costs associated with this version of 
the bill also would be at least $4 million annually. This 
version of H.R. 994 is similar to that ordered reported by the 
Judiciary Committee. The one major difference between the two 
versions relates to whether rules would automatically expire if 
not reviewed. Such automatic terminations could occur under the 
version of H.R. 994 approved by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, not under the version approved by the 
Committee on the Judiciary. This estimate assumes that the 
difference in sunset provisions would not significantly affect 
the cost of conducting sunset reviews.
    State and local costs: CBO believes that H.R. 994 would not 
impose enforceable duties on state or local governments, nor 
would its enactment result in direct costs to these entities. 
CBO anticipates that most federal rule changes prompted by the 
bill would not require modification of procedures or 
regulations by states or localities, although these entities 
may choose to do so. Any costs or savings to state and local 
governments associated with enactment of H.R. 994 would be 
considered indirect.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz 
and Karen McVey (for state and local costs).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                     INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 994 
will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1--Short title

    Section 1 states that this Act may be cited as the 
``Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995.''

Sec. 2--Purpose

    This legislation establishes a procedure whereby agencies 
will review existing regulations to determine whether they 
should be continued without change, modified, consolidated with 
another rule, or terminated. In performing these ``sunset 
reviews,'' the agency must consider comments from affected 
parties--the public, the regulated community, and Congress. The 
Act also recognizes the right of the public and Congress to 
petition for the inclusion of particular rules in the sunset 
review process.
    The intent of this review process is to ensure that rules 
continued in effect in any form meet all the legal requirements 
applicable to new rules, including federal cost/benefit and 
risk assessment requirements. In the event that it is 
determined that repeal or other changes in the rule are 
appropriate, the Act ensures that the procedures set forth in 
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551-559) 
will be followed to achieve that result.
    The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and 
Budget is given responsibility for coordinating and overseeing 
the sunset review process.

Sec. 3--Review of regulations

    Section 3 provides for the implementation of 
recommendations generated by the sunset review process. It 
specifies that upon completion of review of each covered rule, 
the agency which has jurisdiction over the rule shall issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking and conduct a rulemaking in 
accordance with section 8(d). The exception is where the agency 
proposes to continue the rule without change; in that 
circumstance, no rulemaking proceeding is required.

Sec. 4--Rules covered

    Section 4(a) describes the rules which must be reviewed 
under the Act. A ``covered rule'' is: (1) a rule the 
Administrator of OIRA determines is a ``significant rule'' 
under section 4(b); or (2) ``any other rule'' designated by the 
Administrator for sunset review.
    Section 4(b) sets forth the criteria which the 
Administrator shall use in determining whether a rule is 
``significant.'' A ``significant rule'' is one the 
Administrator determines (1) has resulted in or is likely to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more; (2) is a major rule as that term was defined in Executive 
Order 12291 (on the date it became effective); or (3) was 
issued pursuant to a significant regulatory action, as that 
term is defined in Executive Order 12866.
    Sections 4 (c) and (d) describe a procedure whereby the 
general public and appropriate Committees of Congress may 
request that a rule be designated for review under the Act. Of 
course, interested persons already have the right to petition 
for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under the 
Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e). Section 
4(c) requires the agency to respond to these requests. 
Specifically, paragraph (1) allows a person who is adversely 
affected by a non-significant rule to request that the agency 
which has jurisdiction over the rule designate the rule for 
review. The agency is to designate the rule for review unless 
it determines that it would not be in the public interest to 
conduct such a review of the rule. Under the public interest 
test, the agencies will need to consider a variety of factors, 
including their available resources and whether granting a 
petition or petitions will interfere with their ability to 
review regulations of real concern. The agencies will also need 
to consider whether the addition of rules to the review process 
will impair their ability to fulfill their core obligations. 
Together with the deferential standard of judicial review that 
applies under existing law to such determinations, the agency 
will have broad discretion to grant or deny public petitions.
    Paragraph (2) regulates the form and content of a petition 
by a member of the public under paragraph (1). First, the 
petition must be in writing, although it is not required to be 
in any particular form. Second, the petition shall identify 
with reasonable specificity the rule for which sunset review is 
requested, and affirmatively state that the petitioner seeks 
sunset review of the rule. The Committee expects that the 
petitioner will include a showing of the nature and extent of 
the rule's adverse effect on the petitioner and why review 
would be in the public interest. Finally, the petition must be 
accompanied by a $20 processing fee.
    In the event that the agency determines that a petition 
does not satisfy the procedural requirements of paragraphs (1) 
and (2), paragraph (3) requires the agency to notify the 
petitioner of the deficiency in the petition and provide 
information on how it might be cured. This response must be 
provided to the petitioner within 30 days of receipt of the 
defective petition.
    Paragraph (4) establishes the timeframe for issuing 
decisions under this subsection. Within 90 days after receiving 
a procedurally proper petition, the agency is to transmit a 
response to the petitioner stating whether the petition is 
granted or not. The agency may extend this 90 day period for a 
total of no more than 30 days. If the agency fails to issue a 
decision on a petition within the period described in paragraph 
(4), and a court finds that the delay in ruling is substantial 
and inexcusable, paragraph (5) provides that the petition is 
deemed to have been granted. Pursuant to paragraph (6), the 
agency shall maintain a public log of petitions submitted under 
this subsection, that includes the status or disposition of 
each petition.
    Section 4(d) establishes a procedure whereby an appropriate 
committee of Congress, or a majority of the majority or non-
majority party members of such a committee, may request in 
writing that the Administrator designate a non-significant rule 
for sunset review. The rule requested shall be designated for 
review within 30 days unless the Administrator determines that 
it would not be in the public interest to conduct a sunset 
review of that rule. In the event that review of a rule is 
denied under paragraph (1), paragraph (2) requires the 
Administrator to transmit to the requesting committee a notice 
stating the reasons for the denial.
    After designating a rule for review under section 4(c) or 
(d), the agency or Administrator shall, in accordance with 
subsection (e), promptly publish a notice of that designation 
in the Federal Register.

Sec. 5--Criteria for sunset review

    Section 5(a) establishes the criteria for agencies to 
consider during the sunset review process. Each agency must 
analyze covered rules so as to determine whether or not they 
are authorized by law and meet all the statutory requirements 
that would apply if it were issued as a new rule. These 
applicable requirements include any statutory requirements for 
cost/benefit analysis, risk analysis and risk assessment.
    In the event that there is an conflict between the 
requirements referenced in subsection (a) and the law pursuant 
to which the rule was issued, subsection (b) provides that the 
conflict is to be resolved in the same manner as it would be if 
the rule were a new rule.

Sec. 6--Sunset review procedures

    Section 6(a) sets forth the functions of the Administrator 
under the Sunset and Review Act. Paragraph (1) governs the 
Administrator's duty to provide a notice of rules subject to 
review. Within six months after enactment, the Administrator 
must conduct an inventory of existing rules and publish a first 
list of covered rules. This list shall group each significant 
rule in accordance with paragraph (2) and state the review 
deadline for each such rule. Other rules designated for review 
must also be listed, and the deadline by which the review of 
each rule shall be completed. An updated list of covered rules 
shall be issued at least annually, specifying the review 
deadline for each.
    The grouping of significant rules contained in the 
Administrator's initial list shall be governed by the 
provisions of paragraph (2). These rules are to be divided into 
four groups, consideration of which is to be staggered in 
accordance with section 7(a)(1). The Administrator is directed 
to give priority to certain types of rules, including those 
which impose the greatest cost, those which have not previously 
been subject to cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment, and 
those which were issued under statutes that provide relatively 
greater discretion to an official in issuing the rule. 
Consideration shall also be given to the grouping of related 
rules, the views of regulated persons (including State and 
local governments), the burden of reviewing each rule on the 
reviewing agency, and the need for orderly processing and the 
timely completion of the sunset reviews of existing rules. In 
determining these priorities, the Administrator is to consult 
with the agencies which have jurisdiction over the rules under 
consideration.
    Section 6(a)(3) provides for simultaneous sunset review of 
related rules. The Administrator is to group related rules 
under paragraph (2) based on their subject matter similarity, 
functional interrelationships, and other relevant factors, in 
order to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated review of 
overlapping and conflicting rules. Rules shall be grouped 
without regard to whether the same agency issued the rules. The 
Administrator is also given the discretion to designate any 
other rule for sunset review that is necessary to achieve a 
comprehensive sunset review. This designation can occur whether 
or not that rule is otherwise a covered rule under this Act.
    The Administrator is to provide timely guidance to agencies 
on how to conduct sunset reviews and the preparation of sunset 
review notices and reports. This guidance is necessary so as to 
ensure uniform, complete, and timely sunset reviews, and to 
ensure notice and opportunity for public comment consistent 
with section 8.
    Paragraph (5) provides that the Administrator shall review 
and evaluate each preliminary and final report submitted by an 
agency. Within 90 days after receiving a preliminary report, 
the Administrator shall transmit comments to the head of the 
agency regarding the quality of the analysis in the report, 
including: whether the agency has properly applied the review 
criteria in section 5; the consistency of the agency's proposed 
action with actions of other agencies; and whether the rule 
should be continued without change, modified, consolidated with 
another rule, or terminated.
    Section 6(b) describes the agency review process. Section 
6(b)(1) provides that, at least two and one-half years before 
the review deadline for each rule, the reviewing agency must 
publish a sunset review notice, and request the views of the 
Administrator and the appropriate Congressional committees.
    For each rule, an agency shall issue a preliminary report 
at least one year before the review deadline. In its review of 
the rule, the agency shall consider public comments and other 
recommendations generated by the notice issued under paragraph 
(1). The preliminary report shall be published in the Federal 
Register in accordance with section 8(b) and transmitted to the 
Administrator and the appropriate Congressional committees.
    Prior to issuing its final report, the agency must consider 
the public comments and other recommendations generated by the 
preliminary report. At that point, it must again consult with 
the appropriate congressional committees. At least 90 days 
prior to the review deadline for the covered rule, the agency 
must publish its final report in the Federal Register in 
accordance with section 8(d) and transmit it to the 
Administrator and to the appropriate congressional committees. 
In addition, an agency conducting a sunset review shall make a 
written record describing the identity and subject of all 
contacts the agency or the Administrator made with non-
governmental persons outside the agency relating to that 
review. In accordance with section 6(b)(4), that written record 
shall be made available, upon request, to the public.
    Section 6(c) provides that if a final report recommends 
that a covered rule be continued without change, it shall be 
continued. If a final report recommends that a covered rule be 
modified, consolidated with another rule, or terminated, the 
rule may be modified, consolidated or terminated in accordance 
with section 8(d).
    Section 6(d) preserves the independence of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Housing Finance Board, 
the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight by providing that such 
agencies shall exercise the authority of the Administrator or 
other officer designated by the President, for purposes of 
section 7(a)(2)(B). These agencies shall conduct a sunset 
review of their rules consistent with the provisions of this 
legislation.

Sec. 7--Review deadlines for covered rules

    Section 7 specifies the deadlines by which review of 
covered rules must be concluded. For significant rules in 
effect on the date of enactment, the initial review deadline 
for the rule depends upon the group to which it is assigned. 
Section 7(a)(1) creates four groups, which shall have review 
deadlines 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, and 7 years from the date 
of enactment of the Act. For any significant rule which has not 
been assigned to a group six months after the date of 
enactment, the initial review deadline will be 4 years from the 
date of enactment.
    With regard to significant rules that first take effect 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the initial review 
deadline will be three years after the new rule takes effect. 
Section 7(a)(2)(B) provides an exception to this general rule: 
if the Administrator determines that the rule was issued 
pursuant to negotiated rulemaking procedures or that compliance 
with the rule requires substantial capital investment, its 
initial review date shall be seven years after it takes effect.
    For rules subject to sunset review as a result of a public 
petition under section 4(c) or a congressional request under 
section 4(d), section 7(a)(3) specifies that the initial review 
deadline is 3 years from the date the rule is designated for 
sunset review. Under section 7(a)(4), if the Administrator 
designates a rule for sunset review because it is related to 
another covered rule, the review deadline is the same as that 
for the rule with which it is grouped.
    Section 7(b) authorizes the temporary extension of the 
review deadline for up to six months. The Administrator may 
make this extension by publishing a notice in the Federal 
Register that describes the reasons why the temporary extension 
is necessary to respond to or prevent an emergency situation.
    When a rule has been amended or parts of it have been 
promulgated at different times, section 7(c) provides the means 
to determine the date of issuance of the rule. If an agency 
issued various provisions of a covered rule at different times, 
then the rule as a whole shall be treated as if it were issued 
on the latter of either (1) the date the agency issued the 
first portion of the rule, or (2) the date the most recent 
review and revision under this Act was completed.

Sec. 8--Sunset review notices and agency reports

    Section 8(a) lists the elements that must be contained in 
sunset review notices. It must request comments regarding 
whether the rule should be continued without change, modified, 
consolidated with another rule, or terminated. If applicable, 
it must also request comments regarding whether the rule meets 
the current statutory federal cost/benefit and risk assessment 
criteria. Finally, it must solicit comments about the past 
implementation and effects of the rule, including (A) the 
direct and indirect costs incurred because of the rule, 
including the net reduction in the value of private property, 
and whether the incremental benefits of the rule exceeded the 
incremental costs of the rule, both generally and with regard 
to the specific industries and sectors covered by the rule; (B) 
whether the rule as a whole or any of its major features are 
outdated, obsolete, or unnecessary due to changes in 
technology, the marketplace, or otherwise; (C) the extent to 
which the rule or information required to comply with the rule 
duplicates, conflicts, or overlaps with requirements under 
rules of other agencies; (D) in the case of a rule addressing a 
risk to health, safety, or the environment, what the perceived 
risk was at the time the agency issued the rule and whether 
risk predictions were accurate; (E) whether the rule 
unnecessarily impeded domestic or international competition or 
unnecessarily intruded on free market forces, and whether the 
rule unnecessarily interfered with opportunities or efforts to 
transfer to the private sector duties carried out by the 
government; (F) whether, and to what extent, the rule imposed 
unfunded mandates on, or otherwise affected, State and local 
governments; (G) whether compliance with the rule required 
substantial capital investment and whether terminating the rule 
on the next review deadline would create an unfair advantage to 
those who are not in compliance with it; (H) whether the rule 
constituted the least cost method of achieving its objective 
consistent with the criteria of the act under which the rule 
was issued, and to what extent the rule provided flexibility to 
those who were subject to it; (I) whether the rule is worded 
simply and clearly, including clear identification of those who 
were subject to the rule; (J) whether the rule created negative 
unintended consequences; (K) the extent to which information 
requirements can be reduced; and (L) the extent to which the 
rule has contributed positive benefits, particularly health or 
safety or environmental benefits.
    Section 8(b) specifies the contents of preliminary reports 
prepared pursuant to section 6(b)(2). These reports must 
request public comments and contain: specific requests for 
factual findings and recommended legal conclusions regarding 
the application of section 5 to the rule, the continued need 
for the rule, and whether the rule duplicates functions of 
another rule; a request for comments on whether the rule should 
be continued without change, modified, consolidated with 
another rule, or terminated; and, if the agency recommends 
consolidation or modification of the rule, suggestions for the 
proposed text of the consolidated or modified rule.
    Section 8(c) specifies the contents of final reports. Final 
reports must contain the factual findings and legal conclusions 
of the agency regarding the application of section 5 to the 
rule, and the agency's proposed recommendation as to whether 
the rule should be continued without change, modified, 
consolidated with another rule, or terminated. In the case of a 
rule that the agency proposes to continue without change, the 
report shall so state. In the case of a rule that the agency 
proposes to modify, or consolidate with another rule, it must 
contain a notice of proposed rulemaking specifying the details 
of that proposal under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 or under other 
statutory rulemaking procedures required for that particular 
rule (such as under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade 
Improvement Act, Pub. L. 93-637, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 57a). The 
notice of proposed rulemaking shall also include the text of 
the rule as so modified or consolidated. In the case of a rule 
that the agency proposes to terminate, it must contain a notice 
of proposed rulemaking for termination consistent with 
subsection (c)(3)(A).
    The final report shall be published in the Federal 
Register; except where the final proposal was to continue the 
rule, section 8(d) provides that this shall constitute 
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking under 
subsection (c)(3)(A). After its publication, the agency which 
conducted the sunset review shall conduct the rulemaking which 
is the subject of that notice.

Sec. 9--Designation of agency Regulatory Review Officers

    The head of each agency shall designate an agency official 
as the Regulatory Review Officer of the agency. The Regulatory 
Review Officer shall be responsible for the implementation of 
the Sunset and Review Act by the agency and shall report 
directly to the head of the agency and to the Administrator 
with regard to its implementation.

Sec. 10--Relationship to other law; severability

    Section 10(a) makes clear that nothing in this legislation 
is intended to supersede the provisions of chapters 5 through 7 
of title 5 of the United States Code. As previously noted, 
section 8(d) specifically requires that the rulemaking 
procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act be used if a 
rule is proposed to be modified, consolidated with another 
rule, or terminated. The Act is not intended to preclude an 
agency from commencing a rulemaking proceeding at any time (for 
example, prior to a review deadline) to modify or terminate a 
rule. Nor is it intended to interfere with an agency's 
authority to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under 
Chapter 6 of title 5. Section 10(b) provides for the 
severability of the various provisions of the Sunset and Review 
Act in the event that any portion or the application of any 
portion to any person or circumstance is held invalid. In such 
a case, the remainder of the Act, or the application of such 
provisions to other persons and circumstances, shall not be 
affected.

Sec. 11--Effect of termination of covered rule

    Section 11(a) addresses the effect of a termination of a 
covered rule. Section 11(a)(1) clarifies that the Act shall not 
prevent the President or an agency from exercising any 
authority that otherwise exists to implement the underlying 
statute that provided the legal authority for the rule. 
Paragraph (2) provides that, in any agency proceeding or court 
action between an agency and a non-agency party, a terminated 
rule shall be given no conclusive legal effect, but may be 
submitted as evidence of prior agency practice and procedure. 
Section 11(a)(3) allows an agency to invoke a terminated rule 
in an enforcement action that is based on conduct that occurred 
while the rule was in effect. It provides that the Act shall 
not be construed to prevent the continuation or institution of 
any enforcement action that is based on a violation of the rule 
that occurred before the rule terminated.
    Section 11(b) provides for tolling of any regulatory 
deadline relating to a rule terminated under this Act. The 
tolling continues until a new rule is issued, unless otherwise 
provided by law. Paragraph (2) defines the term deadline for 
purposes of this subsection.

Sec. 12--Judicial review

    Section 12(a) provides that a denial or substantial 
inexcusable delay in granting or denying a petition under 
section 4(c) shall be considered final agency action and 
subject to review under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702. Denial of a 
congressional request under section 4(d) is not subject to 
judicial review.
    Section 12(b) establishes a time limitation for seeking 
judicial review of a final agency action under this Act. In the 
case of a final agency action denying a public petition under 
section 4(c) or modifying, consolidating, or terminating a 
covered rule, an action may not be brought more than 30 days 
after the date the agency issues the final rule. In the case of 
a final agency action proposing to continue a rule, an action 
may not be brought more than 30 days after publication of the 
final report. In the case of an action challenging a delay in 
deciding on a petition for inclusion of a rule under section 
4(c), an action for judicial review of a final agency action 
may not be brought more than one year after the period 
applicable to the rule under section 4(c)(4).
    Section 12(c) clarifies that the Congress does not intend 
to affect the availability or standard of judicial review for 
agency regulatory action except as otherwise expressly provided 
in this legislation.

Sec. 13--Definitions

    This section sets forth the definition of various terms 
contained within the Act.
    ``Administrator'' is defined as the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
section 551(l) of title 5, United States Code.
    The term ``appropriate committee of the Congress'' is 
defined, with respect to a rule, as each standing committee of 
Congress having authority to report a bill to amend the 
provision of law under which the rule is issued.
    Section 13(4)(A) states the definition of a rule. Subject 
to certain generic exclusions, the term ``rule'' is defined to 
mean any agency statement of general applicability and future 
effect, including agency guidance document, designed to 
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy, or describing 
the procedures or practices of an agency, or intended to assist 
in such actions.
    The Act also recognizes the following exceptions to the 
general definition of a ``rule,'' because their sunset review 
would not further the purpose of the legislation:
          (i) Formal rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
        Sec. Sec. 556 and 557 or other statutory formal 
        rulemaking proceedings;
          (ii) Regulations or other agency statements that are 
        limited to agency organization, management, or 
        personnel matters;
          (iii) Regulations or other agency statements related 
        to a military or foreign affairs function of the United 
        States;
          (iv) Regulations, statements, or other agency actions 
        that are reviewed and usually modified each year (or 
        more frequently), or are reviewed regularly and usually 
        modified based on changing economic or seasonal 
        conditions;
          (v) Regulations or other agency actions that grant an 
        approval, license, registration, or similar authority, 
        or that grant or recognize an exemption or other 
        actions relieving a restriction, or any agency action 
        necessary to permit new or improved applications of 
        technology or to allow the manufacture, distribution, 
        sale, or use of a substance or product; and
          (vi) Regulations or other agency statements that the 
        Administrator certifies in writing are necessary for 
        the enforcement of the Federal criminal laws.
    Section 13(4)(B) provides that each set of rules designated 
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as a ``part'' or each 
set of rules that is comparable to a ``part'' in the CFR shall 
be treated as one rule.
    The term ``sunset review'' means a review of a rule under 
the Sunset and Review Act.

Sec. 14 of this Act

    Section 14 provides that the Sunset and Review Act will 
have no force or effect after the ten-year period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We agree with the goals of H.R. 994: agencies should be 
forced to thoroughly reassess the continued need for and cost-
effectiveness of their regulations on a regular basis. No one 
benefits from outdated or conflicting regulations and they 
should not linger on the books to frustrate the efforts of 
small business people and other hardworking Americans.
    However, we had serious reservations about the bill as 
reported by the House Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee. Instead of simply requiring agencies to ensure that 
their rules are not outdated, obsolete, unnecessary, or cost-
inefficient, it set out a maze of burdensome requirements that 
mirrored the worst of our bureaucratic process. And if an 
agency was unable to accomplish this review by the arbitrary 
deadlines, the regulation--regardless of whether it was an 
essential health and safety protection or IRS tax guidance that 
had been relied on by generations of taxpayers without 
controversy--would automatically expire.
    According to Sally Katzen, the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
Management and Budget, who testified before the Subcommittee on 
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory 
Affairs of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight:

        * * * the need to review existing regulations is not in 
        dispute--we agree on the objective. The President has 
        taken strong steps to initiate just such a 
        comprehensive review of existing regulations. The issue 
        is how to do it and continue doing it in the most 
        effective way.
          Regrettably, we do not believe H.R. 994 is an 
        effective way of proceeding. This bill starts with a 
        sound idea--but it is openended in scope, excessively 
        rigid, and at times contradictory in the criteria for 
        review; piles on so much paperwork in such short time 
        periods that it is unworkable; and fundamentally 
        changes the relative roles of public notice and 
        comment, and judicial review.

    Some of our concerns were allayed by the Committee's 
adoption of Chairman Hyde's amendment which conformed the 
sunset review process with the Administrative Procedure Act. As 
the Chairman noted at Committee markup, there is simply no good 
reason to create a new notice and comment procedure for the 
sunset review process when we already have an established body 
of law in place that has been interpreted by the courts, and 
relied on by the public, for over 50 years. Under the Hyde 
amendment, rules would not expire automatically. Rather, rules 
identified for termination by a scheduled sunset review would 
meet their end through the established procedures of the APA. 
This procedure will ensure a thorough and orderly review and 
that decisions are made consistent with a public record.
    We are pleased with the direction taken by the majority and 
hope that we will be able to work together in a bi-partisan 
fashion to create a workable piece of legislation. To do this, 
however, requires additional changes as H.R. 994 still suffers 
from serious flaws.
    One major flaw is that the bill sweeps virtually every rule 
into a costly ``one-size fits all'' bureaucratic and cumbersome 
process that is itself not cost-effective. While there are 
rules that merit this intensive scrutiny, many rules do not. 
The definition of ``rule'' sweeps in agency guidance documents 
and any statement describing the procedures or practices of an 
agency. A provision tucked away in Section 13 of the bill 
requires that all rules designated in the Code of Federal 
Regulations as a part, as well as each set of rules not in the 
CFR but that are comparable to a part in the CFR, be treated as 
a single rule. This provision vitiates the thresholds for 
``significant rules'' established in Section 4. For example, 
all SEC regulations of mutual funds would be classified as a 
major rule because they are contained in the same CFR part--
each though many of the regulations are individually very 
minor.
    Yet, every one of these minor rules will have to be 
screened for consistency with set review criteria--which may or 
may not be applicable--at a level of analysis that will 
withstand judicial review.
    Review of existing regulations makes sense. But such review 
should be targeted at regulations that need to be revised. 
Requiring agencies to devote the same amount of resources to 
reviewing effective and non-controversial regulations as they 
devote to problematic ones is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
    It may also save taxpayer dollars and make more sense to 
require agencies to set time tables that correspond to current 
reauthorization cycles. For example, Secretary of Education 
Richard Riley pointed out in a letter to the Ranking Member of 
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Congresswoman 
Cardiss Collins, that the Department of Education already 
reviews existing regulations each time Congress reauthorizes 
education programs, which are on a four year authorization 
cycle: ``Because the review and reporting provisions in H.R. 
994 would be unlikely to coincide with the Department's 
reauthorization driven review cycle, the bill would require the 
Department to expend a tremendous amount of time and resources 
without benefit to the public.''
    Likewise, as Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley noted in a 
letter to the Speaker of the House, Congress has frequently 
adopted statutes establishing a specific sequence for the 
issuance and review of regulations. He concluded that ``H.R. 
994 would conflict with these sequencing provisions in several 
ways.''
    The instability generated by this process may actually be 
detrimental even to regulated entities. It may create a bias 
towards short-term compliance solutions, even where a long-term 
method would be more cost-effective. The acting chairman of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote that he believes the bill 
would be detrimental to business and the regulated community:

          The NRC has many regulations which have been in place 
        for some time and have been accepted by the nuclear 
        industry with no current controversy surrounding their 
        use. Continual reevaluation of these regulations could 
        cause instability, as operating nuclear reactors in 
        particular might be concerned about continually 
        changing requirements. This could lead, paradoxically, 
        to a situation where legislation which is intended to 
        promote private sector business activity would instead 
        have the opposite effect upon the regulated community.

    The NRC expects to incur $170,000 per year in printing 
costs alone as a result of this bill.
    Finally, we are disappointed that the Committee did not 
adopt the amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren, that would have 
protected regulations that if allowed to expire could result in 
death or serious injury or illness to humans or irreparable 
harm to private property or the environment. The bill already 
exempts regulations that relax restrictions or that authorize 
the sale, use or distribution of a product from sunset review. 
Surely, regulations that protect the safety of our citizens 
should be accorded the same treatment.
    The goals of H.R. 994 are admirable, but the methodology 
remains flawed. Although amendments adopted by the Judiciary 
Committee represent a much needed step in the right direction, 
we believe this legislation still needs improvement. We are 
hopeful that this can be done in a sensible, bi-partisan 
manner.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Pat Schroeder.
                                   Barney Frank.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   John Bryant.
                                   Jack Reed.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Bobby Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Xavier Becerra.
                                   Jose E. Serrano.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.

                                
