S. 4151 — Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2026

This section amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) by (1) capitalizing “tribal” as “Tribal” each place it appears; (2) adding to section 3 (2 U.S.C. 1502) a definition of “major rule” as a rule, as defined in 5 U.S.C. §551, that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines is likely to cause (A) an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, adjusted every five years for increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, industries, governments, or regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, public health and safety, or U.S. enterprises' competitiveness; and (3) revising section 202 (2 U.S.C. 1532) to retitle it “Regulatory impact analyses for certain rules,” define “cost” for major rules subject to the section as including compliance costs and reasonably foreseeable indirect costs such as lost revenues, require agencies to prepare and publish initial regulatory impact analyses accompanying notices of proposed rulemaking (open to public comment) and final regulatory impact analyses accompanying final major rules, specify contents of such analyses to include quantified benefits and costs (to the extent feasible), analysis of regulatory alternatives (e.g., incentives, information disclosure, flexible options), compliance with UMRA section 205, assessments of federal funding availability, estimates of disproportionate budgetary and employment effects, and summaries of consultations with state, local, and Tribal governments under UMRA section 204, and update requirements for summarizing analyses in rule promulgations and integrating them with other analyses. (As background, UMRA generally requires federal agencies to assess rules imposing annual mandates exceeding inflation-adjusted thresholds—currently approximately $183 million for intergovernmental mandates and $365 million for private-sector mandates—on state, local, Tribal, or private entities. Thus, these changes expand analysis requirements to a broader category of major rules determined under criteria akin to those in the Congressional Review Act.)

This section revises agency consultation requirements under section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1534) by (1) expanding the section heading to include “and private sector” input; (2) requiring input from elected state, local, and tribal officers, as well as impacted private sector parties (including small businesses), on regulatory proposals containing significant federal mandates (from federal intergovernmental mandates); and (3) replacing the requirement for presidential guidelines with six specific agency guidelines for implementation, including early consultations before notice of proposed rulemaking through final rule issuance, engagement with diverse stakeholders considering geographic and political factors, cost-benefit estimates scaled to mandate significance, views on costs/benefits/risks/alternatives/flexibilities/harmonization, cumulative impacts, and acceptance of (but not sole reliance on) electronic comments.

This section revises section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to require agencies, before promulgating any proposed or final major rule for which a regulatory impact analysis is required under UMRA section 202 (i.e., rules containing federal mandates with annual costs exceeding inflation-adjusted thresholds of approximately $192 million for state, local, and tribal governments or $398 million for the private sector), to select the alternative that maximizes net benefits within the scope of the authorizing statute (replacing the prior requirement to select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative). Agencies may select a different alternative only if approved by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and if the alternative accounts for unquantifiable costs or benefits (e.g., those relating to constitutional or civil rights, with identification and explanation required) or achieves additional benefits or cost reductions (with identification of such items and explanation of their justification required). The section also makes conforming amendments to UMRA section 206 to replace references to "statements" with "analysis."

This section revises section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to establish new responsibilities for the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). (As background, UMRA title II requires federal agencies to prepare regulatory impact analyses for major rules—generally, those imposing annual federal mandates of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.) The revision (1) requires OIRA to provide guidance and oversight ensuring such major rules comply with UMRA title II and other applicable laws and do not conflict with other agencies' policies or actions; (2) directs OIRA, if noncompliance is identified, to notify the agency, specify areas of noncompliance, and request corrections before finalizing the rule; and (3) replaces the prior annual report by the OMB Director on general agency compliance with UMRA subchapter II (submitted to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight) with a new annual OIRA report to Congress—including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—detailing agency compliance with UMRA title II requirements for major rules (including OIRA-requested compliance activities) and including an appendix on section 204 compliance.

This section requires agencies, when determining to initiate a rulemaking that may result in a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), to (1) establish an electronic docket for the rulemaking (which may have a physical counterpart); and (2) publish a notice of initiation in the Federal Register no later than 90 days before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. The notice must (A) briefly describe the rule's subject, objectives, and problem to be solved; (B) cite the legal authority, including the specific statutory provision; (C) invite alternatives from interested persons; and (D) indicate docket submission methods. (As background, UMRA major rules are those likely to result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, by state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector other than to the extent required by statute.)

This section makes two changes to mandate review requirements. (1) It amends the definition of "agency" in sec. 421(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to include independent regulatory agencies (previously excluded). (2) It adds a new sec. 6 to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 exempting rules concerning monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee from titles II (legislative mandates), III (regulatory mandates), and IV (private-sector mandates) of that act.

This section replaces the prior limits on judicial review of agency compliance with Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) written statement requirements (i.e., under former sections 1532 and 1533(a)(1) and (2), review was available only to compel preparation of statements, with no basis for invalidating rules) with broader review rights for major rules subject to UMRA section 202 (i.e., rules containing federal mandates estimated to impose annual costs of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, on state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector). An aggrieved person may now obtain judicial review of agency compliance with UMRA section 202(b) (written assessment of mandate costs and benefits), 202(c)(1) (consideration of alternatives), or 205 (selection of least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative), governed by Administrative Procedure Act chapter 7 standards in courts with jurisdiction over notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. §553 or other laws, with relief limited to APA remedies such as remand (Thus, noncompliance may now result in vacatur or modification of noncompliant major rules.).

This section expands a point of order in the Senate and House—applicable to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report—to cover increases in direct costs of all Federal mandates (both intergovernmental and private sector) that exceed their respective thresholds under section 424 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (previously, only intergovernmental mandates exceeding the intergovernmental threshold). Such measures are not in order unless they provide new budget authority, new entitlement authority (House), direct spending authority (Senate), or a detailed authorization for appropriations equal to or exceeding the mandates' direct costs for up to 10 years.