Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 1963

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-05-06T15:48:32Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025 aims to promote fiscal responsibility in federal rulemaking by requiring agencies to offset the costs of new major rules through the repeal of existing rules, ensuring that such rules do not increase net costs to the public. This is intended to increase transparency and accountability in how agencies create regulations.

Key Provisions

• Pre-Promulgation Requirements: Before issuing a major rule (a regulation with significant economic impact), the head of each federal agency must:
• Estimate the total cost of the rule to the public, including expenses for understanding and implementing it.
• Identify any existing agency rule that could be repealed to fully offset these costs.
• Repeal any such identified rule.
• Publication Requirement: Each major rule published in the Federal Register (the official record of federal regulations) must include a statement indicating whether the rule is "budget neutral," meaning its costs are exactly balanced by the savings from repealed rules.
• Definitions:
• Agency: Any federal executive department or independent agency, as defined in U.S. law (5 U.S.C. § 551).
• Budget Neutral: The new rule's costs equal the total public costs eliminated by repealing an offsetting rule.
• Cost of the Rule: Direct and indirect expenses borne by the public due to the regulation.
• Major Rule: A regulation (including interim final rules) likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, cause major cost increases for consumers or governments, or significantly harm competition, jobs, or U.S. businesses' ability to compete globally. This definition expands on existing law to include interpretive rules (agency explanations of laws), policy statements, and guidance documents, but excludes rules on internal agency matters, specific approvals (e.g., rates or mergers), or procedural rules that do not affect outsiders' rights.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill introduces a new mandate for cost offsets in major rulemaking, which is not currently required under the Administrative Procedure Act (the main U.S. law governing how agencies create rules).
• It broadens the scope of what counts as a "rule" for these purposes by explicitly including interpretive rules, policy statements, and guidance documents—items often not treated as formal regulations before.
• Agencies must now actively repeal existing rules to achieve budget neutrality, adding a deregulatory step to the process that goes beyond existing requirements for cost-benefit analysis (handled by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget).

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Increases administrative workload, as agencies must conduct cost estimates, search for offsets, and repeal rules before issuing new major regulations. This could delay rulemaking and require more coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.
• On Citizens and Businesses: May reduce overall regulatory costs to the public by ensuring new rules do not add net expenses, potentially lowering burdens on individuals, companies, and state/local governments. However, it might limit agencies' ability to address urgent issues without finding offsets, affecting protections in areas like environment, health, or safety.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly support U.S. businesses' competitiveness abroad by curbing regulations that raise costs for domestic enterprises compared to foreign ones.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Agencies: Primary implementers, facing new obligations to analyze and offset costs in their rulemaking.
• The Public (Citizens and Businesses): Bear the costs of regulations; benefit from potential net cost reductions but may see slower adoption of beneficial rules.
• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Involved in defining major rules and overseeing compliance.
• Congress and the Judiciary: Could see shifts in oversight, with more opportunities for congressional review of agency actions and potential legal challenges to repeals or non-neutral rules.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Enhances regulatory accountability but could lead to lawsuits if agencies fail to properly estimate costs or repeal rules, or if repeals undermine statutory mandates (e.g., required protections under environmental laws). It modifies the rulemaking process without altering core constitutional separation of powers, as rulemaking remains an executive function delegated by Congress.
• Constitutional Implications: None directly; it operates within Congress's authority to oversee executive agencies via legislation.
• Political Implications: Aligns with efforts to reduce regulatory burdens and promote deregulation, potentially appealing to those favoring smaller government. It may politicize rulemaking by requiring explicit cost justifications, influencing how agencies under different administrations prioritize rules.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
• 2025-03-06: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (4 pages)