PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 2016
Accountability in Rulemaking Act
This bill requires each federal agency to submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), by December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30 of each year, a unified regulatory agenda listing each regulation under development or review by such agency. The agenda shall include a brief summary of, and the legal authority for, such regulation and a statement of whether the OIRA has declared the regulation to be a significant regulatory action.
A "significant regulatory action" is defined as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a regulation that may:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
have an annual effect on the economy of $167 million or more;
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities;
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action of another agency;
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
The OIRA shall: (1) make each such agenda available on a public website, and (2) review each significant regulatory action listed within 90 days of its submission to ensure such action is consistent with applicable law. The bill sets forth limitations on third-party communication during the review process.
The OIRA shall: (1) document any change made by it to a significant regulatory action during the review process and make such change available on a public website; and (2) for each such action the OIRA returns to an agency for further consideration, it shall provide a written explanation of why further consideration is necessary.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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 Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.6177 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.6177 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.6177 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.6177 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.