HR3230-118

Reported

To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to provide for regulatory impact analyses for certain rules, and for other purposes.

118th Congress Introduced May 11, 2023

Analysis under review: This bill has generated analysis that may be too generic or incomplete. Clause-level evidence remains available below.

Summary

What This Bill Does

Strengthens Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by defining major rules at $100M economic impact and requiring expanded cost-benefit analysis for regulations affecting state/local/tribal governments.

Who Benefits and How

  • State and local governments gain better analysis of regulatory burdens
  • Tribal governments included in mandate analysis
  • Regulated entities receive more thorough cost-benefit analysis

Who Bears the Burden and How

  • Federal agencies must conduct expanded regulatory impact analyses
  • OIRA reviews more rules under strengthened framework
  • Rulemaking potentially slowed by additional requirements

Key Provisions

  • Major rule defined as $100M+ annual economic effect
  • Threshold adjusted for inflation every 5 years
  • Expanded cost analysis including indirect costs and lost revenues
  • Covers significant effects on competition, investment, innovation

Evidence Chain:

This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers.

At a Glance

What This Bill Does

Expands unfunded mandates analysis requirements and defines major rules at $100M threshold

Who Benefits

  • State and local governments
  • Tribal governments
  • Regulated entities

Who Bears Costs

  • Federal agencies
  • OIRA
  • Rulemaking process

Key Policy Areas

Regulatory Reform, Government Oversight, Federalism

Primary Purpose

Expands unfunded mandates analysis requirements and defines major rules at $100M threshold

Policy Domains

Regulatory Reform Government Oversight Federalism

Legislative Strategy

"Strengthen regulatory analysis to protect state/local/tribal governments"

Legislative Progress

Reported
Introduced Committee Passed
Dec 18, 2024

Additional sponsors: Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Golden of Maine, Mr. Molinaro, …

Dec 18, 2024

Reported from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability with an …

Dec 18, 2024

Committees on Rules, the Budget, and the Judiciary discharged; committed …

May 11, 2023

Ms. Foxx (for herself and Mr. Cuellar) introduced the following …

Stakeholder Effects

cui bono?

How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.

Federal Regulators
11 mentions across 10 clauses
+2 positive -9 negative

Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Board, Federal regulatory agencies

Positive-direction: Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Board

Negative-direction: Federal regulatory agencies, Independent regulatory agencies (SEC, FCC, etc.)

All Industries
10 mentions across 10 clauses
+10 positive

Private sector businesses, Private sector stakeholders, Regulated businesses

Government
5 mentions across 5 clauses
-5 negative

Congress (legislative process), Federal regulatory agencies, OIRA

Small Business
2 mentions across 2 clauses
+2 positive

Small businesses, Small businesses affected by federal rules

Judiciary
1 mention across 1 clause
-1 negative

Federal courts

16/16
sections analyzed
Full impact breakdown

Bill Structure & Actor Mappings

Who is "The Secretary" in each section?

Domains
Regulatory Reform Federalism
Actor Mappings
"the_administrator"
→ OIRA Administrator

Key Definitions

Terms defined in this bill

1 term
"major rule" §2

Rule with $100M+ annual economic effect or major cost/competition impacts

We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.

Learn more about our methodology