PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.821 / 104th Congress

Middle Class Regulatory Relief Act of 1995

Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 1995

Middle Class Regulatory Relief Act of 1995 - Amends Federal law to define "major rule" as a rule or a group of closely related rules that the proposing agency or the President determines is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $50 million or more in reasonably quantifiable increased costs, or has a significant impact on a sector of the economy. (Sec. 2) Authorizes an agency proposing the rule or the President to designate as a major rule any rule or group of closely related rules which is likely to result in: (1) a substantial increase in costs or prices for wage earners, consumers, individual industries, nonprofit organizations, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (2) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, the environment, public health or safety, or the ability of enterprises whose principal places of business are in the United States to compete in domestic or export markets. Requires each Federal agency, before publishing notice of proposed rulemaking for any rule, to determine whether the rule is or should be designated major. Requires the agency to issue at the time of the notice of proposed rulemaking a draft cost-benefit analysis which shall be summarized in such notice. Prohibits an agency from promulgating a rule unless it finds that: (1) the rule's potential benefits to society outweigh its costs; and (2) such rule will provide greater net benefits to society than reasonable alternatives, including certain market-based mechanisms. Subjects agency and presidential rule determinations or designations to judicial review. Authorizes any person subject to a major rule to petition the agency or the President to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Requires an agency, before a major rule can become final, to submit to the Congress a copy of the rule and a report containing a concise statement on the rule, a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis, and the proposed effective date of the rule. Prohibits a rule from becoming final if the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval. Prohibits the promulgation of any rule that expands Federal jurisdiction beyond the level of regulatory action needed to satisfy statutory requirements. Requires a court reviewing a final agency action to affirm an agency's interpretation of the statute granting authority to promulgate the rule if, in applying traditional principles of statutory construction, it finds that the interpretation is clearly the interpretation of the statute intended by the Congress. Requires the head of each Federal agency to prepare: (1) a risk assessment for each proposed major rule relating to human health, safety, or natural resources; and (2) for each such proposed or final rule, an assessment of incremental risk reduction or other benefits associated with each significant regulatory alternative to the rule or proposed rule (including a comparison of any human health, safety, or natural resource risks addressed by such alternatives to other relevant risks chosen by the agency heads). Specifies principles for risk assessment, risk characterization, and risk communication, requiring generally that scientific findings and best estimates of risk be distinguished from other considerations. Requires the President to issue a final regulation for agencies to implement risk assessment and risk characterization principles and provide a format for summarizing risk assessment results. Requires an agency head, subject to presidential review, to determine for each major rule that: (1) the risk assessment is based on a scientific evaluation supported by the best available scientific data; and (2) there is no alternative allowed by statute under which the major rule is promulgated that would achieve an equivalent reduction in risk in a more cost-effective and flexible manner. Requires an agency head to prioritize the use of available resources under laws protecting human health and safety or the environment to address the risks to human health, safety, and natural resources that: (1) the agency determines are the most serious; and (2) can be addressed in a cost-effective manner while achieving the greatest overall net reduction in risks with the public and private sector resources to be expended. Requires such priorities to be incorporated into the agency's budget request to the Congress. Directs the President to develop a systematic program for peer review of work products. Requires the President to: (1) establish procedures for agency compliance with this Act; and (2) monitor, review, and ensure such compliance. Authorizes an affected small entity to petition for the judicial review of a final rule with respect to which an agency: (1) has certified that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (2) prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. McIntosh, David M. [R-IN-2] · R–IN

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
  • Oversight and Government Reform Committee
  • Rules Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

    2. Referred to the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs.

    3. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, 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.

    4. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, 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.

    5. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, 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.

    6. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, 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.

    7. Introduced in House

    8. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.821 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.821 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.821 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.821 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.

    View full prompt & sources