Zero Based Regulations Act
- Bill Number
- S. 1556
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-01: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2025-06-04T15:36:46Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Zero Based Regulations Act (S. 1556) aims to reduce the overall regulatory burden on the public by requiring federal agencies to systematically review, repeal, and justify all existing regulations. It adopts a "zero-based" approach, treating regulations as needing periodic reauthorization based on current needs, costs, and benefits. The bill also temporarily restricts new or amended regulations to ensure a net decrease in regulatory volume during its initial implementation year.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- "Agency" refers to any executive branch entity subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a law that governs how agencies create and enforce rules.
- "Rule" or "regulation" means any agency statement that has the force of law, as defined under the APA.
- Ongoing Review of Existing Rules (Section 3):
- Agencies must review all parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—the official compilation of federal rules—on a schedule set annually by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
- The schedule ensures about 20% of an agency's total regulations are reviewed each year, allowing public input without overwhelming participation.
- Before review, agencies must repeal the rules in question.
- Reviews include a "retrospective analysis" to assess: (1) if the rule meets its original legislative goals; (2) if benefits justify costs; and (3) if less burdensome alternatives exist. OIRA develops and publishes a standardized process for this analysis within 180 days of enactment.
- To reinstate a repealed rule, agencies must follow APA procedures, conduct at least two public hearings, publish the analysis online, and ensure the new version imposes no more than 70% of the original rule's estimated costs.
- Review schedules are published on OIRA's website by January 1 each year, and the Federal Register notes review dates on CFR cover sheets.
- Administrative Rules Coordinator (Section 4):
- Each agency head must appoint a coordinator from the agency's general counsel office to oversee compliance with the Act.
- Process for New or Amended Rules (Section 5):
- In the fiscal year of enactment (a temporary moratorium), agencies are barred from most new rulemaking unless:
- The rule is narrowly tailored to: reduce burdens, eliminate outdated rules, comply with new laws or court orders, or address documented threats to health, peace, or safety.
- At least one existing rule is repealed or simplified to achieve a net reduction in regulatory burden (waivable by OMB Director for legally mandated rules).
- At least one public hearing is held.
- A standardized cost-benefit analysis (prospective analysis) is completed and published online using a form developed by OIRA.
- Exceptions allow rulemaking for "good cause" (e.g., emergencies under APA) or by Presidential waiver.
- All proposed amendments to a CFR part must be bundled in a single online docket on regulations.gov.
- New rules creating CFR parts undergo retrospective analysis every 5 years, with review dates published on CFR cover sheets and ecfr.gov.
- During the initial year, amendments are limited to reinstating repealed rules under Section 3.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces mandatory, periodic repeal and rejustification of all existing regulations, unlike current law which allows rules to remain indefinitely unless challenged or voluntarily revised.
- Imposes a one-year moratorium on most new rules with strict offsetting requirements (e.g., repealing old rules), going beyond existing executive orders on regulatory reform that encourage but do not require such offsets.
- Caps reinstatement costs at 70% of originals and mandates standardized analyses, strengthening but altering APA requirements for public notice, hearings, and economic evaluations.
- Requires agency coordinators and centralized scheduling/publication, adding new administrative layers not present in prior law.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases workload through mandatory reviews, analyses, and coordinator roles, potentially straining resources but promoting more efficient regulation. Could slow agency responses to emerging issues during the initial moratorium.
- On Citizens and Businesses: May reduce compliance costs and simplify interactions with government by eliminating outdated rules, but risks creating gaps in protections (e.g., environmental or consumer safeguards) if rules are not reinstated. Enhances public participation via required hearings and online transparency.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reduced regulations in areas like trade or environmental standards could affect U.S. compliance with global agreements or negotiations.
- Overall, aims for a leaner federal regulatory framework, potentially lowering economic burdens estimated in the trillions annually, but implementation could lead to legal disputes over repealed rules.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Bear the primary burden of reviews, repeals, and analyses; coordinators ensure internal compliance.
- Businesses and Regulated Industries: Benefit from potential burden reductions but may face uncertainty during repeals or delays in new rules.
- The Public (Citizens and Advocacy Groups): Gain opportunities for input through hearings and online dockets; could see varied effects depending on reinstated protections (e.g., health, safety, or labor rules).
- OIRA and OMB: Oversee scheduling, forms, and waivers, expanding their role in regulatory oversight.
- Congress and the Judiciary: Indirectly affected, as the bill shifts some regulatory control back toward legislative intent; courts may handle challenges to repeals or moratoriums.
- The President: Holds waiver authority, influencing enforcement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Aligns with the APA by requiring notice, hearings, and analyses but could invite lawsuits if repeals are seen as arbitrary or if the moratorium conflicts with statutory mandates. The 70% cost cap introduces a novel quantifiable limit on agency discretion.
- Constitutional: Raises questions about separation of powers, as Congress reasserts control over agency rulemaking (originally delegated via statutes), potentially limiting executive branch flexibility without violating non-delegation doctrine precedents.
- Political: Promotes a deregulatory agenda, appealing to those favoring smaller government, but may polarize debates over regulatory necessities (e.g., in climate or finance). As a Senate-introduced bill referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, its passage could signal broader reforms under Republican leadership, though implementation details might evolve through amendments.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (3)
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID], Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
Recent Actions
- 2025-05-01: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2025-05-01: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Zero Based Regulations Act — issued 2025-05-01 — PDF (9 pages)