Overview
Title
To require agencies to repeal ten existing regulations before issuing a new regulation, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The new bill wants to make sure that if someone in the government wants to create a new rule, they first have to remove ten old ones. This is to help keep things from getting too complicated or costly for people and towns.
Summary AI
H. R. 710, also known as the “Regulation Decimation Act,” aims to streamline federal regulations by requiring agencies to repeal ten existing rules before they can issue a new one. This applies to rules that impose costs on individuals or local governments but excludes rules related to agency practices or procurement. It ensures that any new major rule is not more costly than the repealed rules and mandates public reporting on the repeal process. Additionally, agencies must review and report to Congress on outdated or ineffective regulations, and the President must provide a status report on rule reductions five years after the Act's implementation.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill "Regulation Decimation Act," titled H. R. 710, aims to reshape the regulatory landscape of U.S. government agencies significantly. Introduced to the House of Representatives on January 23, 2025, by Mr. Taylor and co-sponsored by several others, this bill mandates federal agencies to repeal at least ten existing regulations before issuing any new rule. Furthermore, for any major rule—defined as a rule with substantial impact on the economy—the cost of the new rule must not exceed that of the repealed regulations. The bill also requires a thorough review of current rules to identify those that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated and mandates reporting on the effectiveness of the regulatory landscape.
General Summary
At its core, the Regulation Decimation Act seeks to significantly reduce the number of federal regulations by imposing a ratio requirement: ten outdated regulations must be repealed to make room for each new one. Agencies must ensure that repealed rules are, whenever practical, related to the new regulation they wish to implement. The bill also emphasizes cost-effectiveness, especially for major rules, and requires certification of costs. Regular publication of repealed rules is mandated for transparency, alongside a detailed review and reporting mechanism for existing regulations.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several important issues and concerns. The core requirement to repeal ten regulations for each new one could potentially lead to the removal of beneficial protections in various sectors, such as environment or public safety. This aspect may lead to hurried or indiscriminate regulatory repeals without thorough consideration of their effectiveness or necessity.
The financial stipulations for major rules, which cap the cost of a new regulation to that of the repealed laws, may overlook the broader benefits of updated, potentially more effective regulations. This focus on cost could result in economically efficient rules taking precedence over those delivering intangible social or environmental benefits.
Further, the bill's lack of clarity in defining terms like "to the extent practicable" and criteria for identifying "costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated" rules may lead to inconsistent interpretations and a varied approach across different agencies. There is also concern that the defined exemption criteria could create loopholes that agencies may exploit to bypass the repeal requirement by deeming rules internal policies or simply less burdensome.
Lastly, the administrative burden introduced by the reporting and certification requirements could create bureaucratic obstacles that hinder the timely development and implementation of necessary regulations. The proposed 90-day review for all existing regulations may also be insufficient for delivering a comprehensive and beneficial evaluation of complex regulatory frameworks.
Public Broad Impact
For the general public, this bill, if passed, could drastically alter the regulatory environment they interact with. An intended positive outcome is to reduce bureaucratic red tape, potentially leading to more straightforward business processes and possibly boosting economic activities. However, the challenges associated with the withdrawal of potentially beneficial regulations, especially without thorough review, could pose risks to the public's health, safety, and welfare, should essential protections be eliminated in the name of efficiency.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Different stakeholders are likely to experience distinct impacts. Businesses might appreciate reduced regulatory burdens and the associated cost savings, potentially fostering innovation and growth. Conversely, consumer advocacy groups and environmental organizations might argue against the potential loss of vital regulatory protections that ensure safety, consumer rights, and environmental preservation.
Regulatory agencies could face increased stress from not only the new mandate to repeal but also the administrative demands of regular reporting and certification of rule costs. Certain industries tightly regulated by complex federal frameworks may see increased instability or uncertainty due to potential shifts in applicable rules.
Overall, while the Regulation Decimation Act aims to streamline regulations and reduce governmental burdens, it does so with a trade-off that could lead to broader societal impacts, challenging the delicate balance between deregulation and the maintenance of necessary protections.
Issues
The requirement to repeal ten existing regulations before issuing a new one, as outlined in Section 2, could lead to the indiscriminate or hasty removal of regulations that may be beneficial, potentially impacting public safety, environmental protections, or economic stability.
Section 2's mandate that the cost of a new major rule must be less than or equal to the cost of the rules repealed fails to consider the potential benefits of the new rule or the intangible costs associated with repealed regulations, potentially leading to reduced effectiveness or efficiency in governance.
The lack of clarity in Section 2 regarding what constitutes 'to the extent practicable' when repealing related rules introduces ambiguity and may result in inconsistent application or legal challenges.
The definition of 'costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated' rules in Section 2 is subjective and lacks precise criteria, possibly resulting in inconsistent or biased interpretations by agencies.
The exemption in Section 2 for rules related to 'internal policy or practice' and rules revised 'to be less burdensome' without clear definitions may lead to varied interpretations and potential loopholes in regulatory processes.
The 90-day review period for agency rules in Section 2 may not provide sufficient time for a comprehensive evaluation of existing regulations, risking hurried and inadequate assessments that could impact policy efficacy.
The requirement for extensive certification and reporting processes in Section 2 could create bureaucratic obstacles, potentially slowing down regulatory processes and hindering timely implementation of necessary regulations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that the official name for the law is the "Regulation Decimation Act".
2. Repeal of regulations required before issuance of a new rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Agencies are required to repeal at least ten existing rules that are related to any new rule before issuing it, and for a major rule, the cost must not exceed the cost of the repealed rules. This section also outlines the publication requirements for repealed rules, the applicability of the section, and mandates reports on the status and effectiveness of current rules, with specific definitions provided for key terms.