PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2079-2081)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 2, 1995
Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995 - Revises Federal provisions regarding judicial review of regulatory flexibility analyses. Authorizes an affected small entity to petition for judicial review within one year after the effective date of a final rule which an agency certified would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or for which an agency prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis. Specifies that where a provision of law requires that an action challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the expiration of the one-year period, such lesser period shall apply to a petition for judicial review. Requires that, where an agency delays the issuance of a final regulatory flexibility analysis, a petition for judicial review shall be filed not later than: (1) one year after the date the analysis is made available to the public; or (2) a lesser number of days specified by a provision of law that requires that an action challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the expiration of such one-year period. Authorizes the court, where the agency: (1) certified that such rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, to order the agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis if the court determines that the certification was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; and (2) prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis, to order the agency to take corrective action if the court determines that the analysis was prepared without observance of proper procedure. Authorizes the court to stay the rule or grant such other relief as appropriate if by the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the court order (or such longer period as the court may provide) the agency fails to prepare the required analysis or to take corrective action. Specifies that: (1) in an action for the judicial review of a rule, any analysis for such rule shall constitute part of the whole record of agency action; and (2) nothing in this Act bars judicial review of any other impact statement or similar analysis required by law.
People & committees
Sen. Bond, Christopher S. [R-MO] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2079-2081)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2066-2067)
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: Aug 10, 2026. 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.350 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.350 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.350 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.350 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.