PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 614.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 6, 2016
Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill defines a "major rule" as a rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
The bill directs an agency, not later than 90 days before publishing a notice of proposed rule making for a major rule in the Federal Register, to publish advance notice of proposed rule making for such rule, which shall:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
include a written statement identifying the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed, a general description of regulatory alternatives, the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by which the agency expects to measure progress toward that objective; and
solicit and provide a period of at least 60 days for submission of written data, views, and argument from interested persons.
Any deviation between policies set forth in such statement and any final agency action shall not be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The bill is inapplicable to a major rule:
for which the proposing agency is not required to publish a notice of proposed rule making,
if the OIRA determines that complying with the requirements described in this bill would not serve the public interest or would be unduly burdensome and duplicative of processes required by specific statutory requirements as rigorous as those prescribed in this bill, or
if the agency proposing the major rule is otherwise specifically exempted by law from notice and comment rule making procedures.
Such a determination made by the OIRA shall not be subject to judicial review.
People & committees
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 614.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-343. Additional views filed.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-343. Additional views filed.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-480.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 24, 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 S.1820 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 S.1820 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 S.1820 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 S.1820 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.