Regulatory Accountability Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3525
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-20: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-10T06:40:45Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Regulatory Accountability Act aims to reform the federal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by promoting transparency, rigorous analysis, and accountability. It requires agencies to justify rules—especially major ones (those with significant economic or other impacts)—based on costs, benefits, and alternatives, while ensuring public access to information and periodic reviews of rules' effectiveness. The goal is to make regulations more efficient, less burdensome, and aligned with statutory objectives without expanding or contracting agency authority.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: Updates the APA (5 U.S.C. § 551) to define key terms, including "guidance" (non-binding agency statements on policy or interpretations), "major guidance" (guidance with broad economic or policy effects), and "major rule" (rules likely to have $100 million or more annual economic impact, raise prices/costs significantly, affect competition/employment/innovation, or involve novel legal issues). References the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and its Administrator for oversight.
- Rulemaking Considerations: Agencies must evaluate:
- Legal basis and discretion for the rule.
- Problem's nature and existing laws' role (including potential repeal/amendment).
- At least three alternatives (e.g., performance standards, incentives, disclosures) to achieve goals without mandating specific actions.
- For major rules: Detailed costs/benefits analysis (quantitative/qualitative, direct/indirect, including risks).
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
- Agencies submit proposals to OIRA for review before Federal Register publication.
- NPRM must include rule text, legal authority, considerations summary, and—for major rules—a preliminary explanation of benefits justifying costs, alternatives discussion, and public comment solicitation.
- Supporting data (studies, models) must be publicly accessible (via docket or reference, with exceptions for confidential info or FOIA exemptions).
- Comment periods: At least 60 days (90 for major rules), plus 30-day responsive period for major rules.
- Bans post-notice advocacy communications by agencies or funded parties (e.g., no propaganda); requires publishing ex parte communications.
- If a rule becomes "major" after NPRM, additional 30-day comment period.
- Advanced Notice for Major Rules (ANPRM):
- For potential major rules, agencies create an electronic docket and publish ANPRM at least 90 days before NPRM, describing the problem, legal authority, and soliciting alternatives/data (30-day minimum response period).
- Establishes a timetable with milestones (e.g., NPRM date, comment end); delays require reports to Congress/OMB and Federal Register notice.
- If no rule proceeds, publish notice explaining alternative agency action.
- Final Rules:
- For major rules: Adopt alternative maximizing net benefits (considering only statutory-scope benefits and cumulative costs); exceptions need OIRA approval (e.g., for unquantifiable rights impacts or extra benefits).
- Final notice includes basis/purpose, comment responses, and—for major rules—justification that benefits justify costs and no better alternative exists.
- Uses best available science/economics, compliant with information quality guidelines.
- Data accessibility required; 90-day delay option for rules near presidential transitions to allow comment on repeal/amendment.
- Publication: At least 30 days (60 for major rules) before effective date.
- Exceptions and Applicability:
- Good cause bypasses (e.g., emergencies) allow direct or interim final rules with limited comments; interim rules expire if not finalized within 180 days.
- Does not apply to guidance, procedural rules, monetary policy, or where other laws conflict (those laws prevail).
- Agencies must allow petitions for rule changes and solicit retrospective review ideas.
- Guidance Documents: Must state non-binding status; major guidance requires reasoned determination (including costs/benefits). OIRA issues guidelines for simplicity and non-duplication.
- Major Rule Assessment Frameworks:
- NPRM includes preliminary effectiveness framework; final rule includes detailed one (objectives, metrics, data plan, 10-year max review timeline).
- Agencies assess rules periodically (up to 10 years) for actual vs. predicted impacts, necessity, and alternatives; publish results.
- OIRA oversees, with exemptions/ extensions possible; agencies may recommend congressional changes if repeal is barred.
- OIRA Role: Provides guidelines on analysis/simplification/consistency; reviews rules; notifies non-compliant agencies; annual compliance reports to Congress.
- Judicial Review (5 U.S.C. § 706): Courts review entire record under prejudicial error standard (harmless errors not fatal). De novo review for legal questions (with agency views considered); agency rule interpretations get weight based on reasoning/consistency. OIRA actions (except FOIA/Privacy) not reviewable. Guidance review limited unless it interprets law.
- Application and Constructions: Changes apply only to new rulemakings post-enactment; no effect on copyrights. Technical amendments update dozens of laws for consistency (e.g., renumbering APA sections).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- From Informal to Structured Rulemaking: Replaces APA's basic notice-and-comment (5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(e)) with mandatory pre-notice ANPRM/timetables for major rules, OIRA pre-publication review, and formalized cost-benefit/net benefits requirements—building on but exceeding Executive Order 12866.
- Alternatives and Analysis: Presumes three alternatives reasonable; mandates maximizing net benefits for major rules (new statutory duty, not just policy).
- Public Access and Participation: Requires docket accessibility for all supporting info; longer comments; bans biased communications; adds responsive periods.
- Retrospective Review: Introduces mandatory frameworks and periodic assessments for major rules (expanding voluntary efforts like Executive Order 13563).
- Guidance Treatment: Explicitly non-binding; procedural hurdles for major guidance (previously often issued without review).
- Judicial Standards: Adds de novo law review and prejudicial error; limits guidance challenges; precludes OIRA review (protecting executive oversight).
- End-of-Administration Rules: New 90-day delay authority for incoming presidents.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Heavier analytical/reporting workload and timelines may delay rules (e.g., ANPRM adds months); OIRA bottlenecks possible but oversight could standardize processes and reduce errors/litigation. Annual reports enhance accountability to Congress.
- Citizens and Businesses: More transparent, evidence-based rules with broader input opportunities; potential for fewer/more targeted regulations via alternatives/reviews, lowering compliance costs but possibly weakening protections (e.g., environment/health) if benefits downplayed. Small businesses/rural/low-income groups benefit from impact assessments.
- International Relations: Indirect; major rule definitions consider U.S. competitiveness vs. foreign enterprises, potentially affecting trade/export rules without direct foreign policy changes.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: All rulemaking entities (e.g., EPA for environment, FDA for health/safety, DOL for labor) face new procedures; independent agencies partially included unless exempted.
- OIRA/OMB: Central oversight role expands, with review/notification powers.
- Businesses and Industries: Regulated sectors (e.g., energy, manufacturing, finance) gain from cost-focused analyses and reviews but may face longer uncertainty.
- Public and Advocacy Groups: Citizens, consumers, environmental/labor nonprofits benefit from participation/access but could see diluted rules if net benefits prioritize economics.
- Congress: Receives reports, recommendations, and tools to influence via petitions/delays.
- Courts: Handle more procedural challenges; limited remedies (e.g., remand only) for assessment failures.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Codifies cost-benefit analysis into statute (less vulnerable to executive revocation); strengthens APA procedural hurdles, increasing viable challenges to arbitrary rules but raising barriers for guidance. "Substantial evidence" definition clarifies review standards, potentially reducing agency deference under cases like Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm (1983).
- Constitutional: Bolsters separation of powers by mandating statutory alignment and congressional reporting, curbing perceived executive overreach; enhances due process via public input/access. No direct First Amendment issues, but communication bans could limit agency outreach.
- Political: Promotes a "less regulation" framework (e.g., net benefits, retrospectives) appealing to deregulation advocates; may polarize debates on regulatory state size, with critics arguing it hampers quick responses to crises (e.g., public health). OIRA's insulation from review protects executive functions but invites accusations of unaccountable bureaucracy.
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
- 2025-05-20: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-05-20: Introduced in House
- 2025-05-20: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Regulatory Accountability Act — issued 2025-05-20 — PDF (74 pages)