PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 12, 1994
Administrative Procedure Reform Act of 1994 - Amends Federal law to require a Federal agency head to publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to engage in major rulemaking which contains a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Requires a final Regulatory Impact Analysis for any final proposal for a major rule. Specifies the contents of such an Analysis, as well as hearing and comment period requirements. Defines major rule as any proposed regulatory action: (1) which affects more than 100 persons; or (2) compliance with which will require the expenditure of over $1 million by any person which is not a Federal agency. Prohibits an agency from adopting a major rule unless its final Regulatory Impact Analysis is approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sets forth a standard of clarity for major rules. Directs the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to report to the Congress an analysis of the rulemaking procedures of Federal agencies and their impact on the regulated public and regulatory process.
People & committees
Rep. Franks, Bob [R-NJ-7] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1716)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4949 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4949 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4949 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4949 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.