Timeliness of OIRA Reviews: A Snapshot in Time
To gain insight into ongoing reviews, we can turn to RegInfo.gov to get a snapshot of how long the regulations currently at OIRA have been under review.
Homepage featured content
Featured: The Congressional Review Act
What it does
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) establishes procedures for Congress to overturn final rules issued by federal agencies. After an agency's rule is reported to Congress, members of Congress have 60 days to introduce a joint resolution disapproving of the rule. When signed into law, these resolutions of disapproval (RDs) overturn the rule in question and bar agencies from issuing a "substantially similar" rule. The CRA offers two unique mechanisms: the Senate "fast-track" procedures and the "lookback" period. For an in-depth discussion of these mechanics and more, see our Regulatory Insight A Lookback at the Law: How Congress Uses the CRA.
CRA Use Trending Upward for Both Major and Non-major Rules, 1996-2022
CRA Window Exploratory Dashboard
Image
This dashboard allows users to explore the set of final rules published in the Federal Register in 2024, and how various lookback dates could affect the set of rules available for congressional review at the beginning of the next session of Congress. View Dashboard.
Commentary:
The Continued Evolution of the Congressional Review Act. Susan Dudley & Steve Balla, April 22, 2026. Previously considered largely a tool for the incoming Congress and president to overturn a departing president's midnight regulations, Congress has recently begun using the CRA in unanticipated ways.
Our Latest Publications
Cumulative Economically Significant Final Rules by Administration
Image
Australia's Regulatory "Bonfire"
According to the World Economic Forum, Australia's labor regulations and red tape are major problems for doing business in the country.
Rulemaking Ossification Is Real: A Response to Testing the Ossification Thesis
Jason & Susan Yackee engage in an empirical study and claim to find relatively weak evidence that ossification is neither a serious or widespread problem. After a review of the Yackee’s methodology, dataset, time period, and suggestion of appropriate normative criteria, I conclude that nothing in the Yackee’s study contradicts or undermines the ossification hypothesis. In fact, ossification is a real problem that has a wide variety of serious adverse effects.