SMART Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 76
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-13: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2025-04-03T19:28:32Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The SMART Act of 2025 aims to enhance the effectiveness of major federal regulations (called "major rules") by requiring agencies to plan and conduct retrospective reviews. This ensures rules continue to meet their goals over time, reducing unnecessary burdens and improving regulatory outcomes without creating new substantive requirements.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: Adds terms to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including "Administrator" (head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, within the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB) and "major rule" (rules with significant economic impact, such as $100 million or more annually on the economy, major cost increases, or adverse effects on competition, jobs, health, safety, environment, or U.S. businesses competing globally).
- Framework for Proposed and Final Rules:
- For proposed major rules, agencies must include a basic plan on how they will measure the rule's effectiveness.
- For final major rules, agencies must publish a detailed framework covering:
- Regulatory goals, including expected societal benefits and costs.
- Methods to evaluate qualitative (non-numerical) and quantitative (numerical) results.
- Plans for collecting data, including public input, on an ongoing or periodic basis.
- A review timeline, up to 10 years after the rule takes effect.
- Assessment Requirements:
- Agencies must evaluate if the rule's actual benefits and costs match expectations, if it still achieves its goals, if it's outdated due to changes or overlaps with other rules (including state/local ones), if it needs updates, and if alternatives could work better with less burden.
- If using a different evaluation method than originally planned, agencies must explain why.
- After assessment, agencies must identify triggers for future reviews if the rule stays in place.
- Results must be published on the agency's website within 180 days.
- Oversight and Flexibility:
- Agency heads ensure timely compliance and prompt publication.
- OIRA/OMB issues guidance, helps coordinate reviews, and can exempt routine or emergency rules or extend deadlines by up to 90 days.
- Authorizes necessary funding for implementation.
- Exemptions and Applicability:
- Does not apply to rules already reviewed by OIRA before enactment, those under specific existing review laws (e.g., for financial stability), rules tied to laws reauthorized by Congress every 10 years or less, interpretive rules, policies, or procedural rules.
- For rules issued without public notice (e.g., emergencies), the framework must be published within 6 months.
- Judicial Review: Limited to checking if agencies published required frameworks or assessments (no review of their quality or decisions). Courts can only order compliance; rules remain effective regardless.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends the APA (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 and 553) by adding definitions and a new subsection (f) to § 553, mandating retrospective planning and review for major rules—previously, such reviews were encouraged but not systematically required in rulemaking.
- Builds on but does not replace existing review mandates (e.g., under laws like the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act), ensuring no conflicts.
- Introduces structured, forward-looking assessment plans in rulemaking, shifting from one-time approvals to ongoing evaluation, with OIRA gaining explicit guidance and exemption powers.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Increases workload for planning, data collection, and assessments, potentially leading to more efficient rules but requiring resources (funded via appropriations). OIRA/OMB faces expanded oversight role.
- Citizens and Businesses: Could result in rules that are more targeted and less burdensome over time, benefiting regulated industries, consumers, and the economy by identifying ineffective or outdated regulations. Public input in data gathering enhances transparency.
- International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reviews considering U.S. competitiveness could indirectly support trade and export goals by reducing domestic regulatory hurdles for businesses.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primary issuers of rules (e.g., EPA, FDA, DOL) must comply with new planning and review processes.
- Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/OIRA: Provides guidance, exemptions, and coordination.
- Regulated Entities: Businesses, industries, and local/state governments affected by major rules, who may benefit from streamlined regulations but could face short-term compliance costs.
- Public and Advocacy Groups: Gain opportunities for input and access to assessment results via websites.
- Congress: Indirectly influenced, as rules tied to periodically reauthorized laws are exempt, preserving legislative oversight.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens APA by embedding accountability in rulemaking, but limits judicial review to procedural compliance (no substantive challenges), reducing litigation risks for agencies while protecting rule effectiveness. Aligns with executive orders on regulatory reform without altering core APA notice-and-comment processes.
- Constitutional: Supports separation of powers by enhancing executive branch self-regulation, potentially reducing judicial overreach into policy decisions, but ensures transparency to uphold due process for affected parties.
- Political: Promotes bipartisan regulatory efficiency (introduced by Sens. Lankford and Capito), encouraging evidence-based governance that could appeal to both deregulation advocates and those seeking better outcomes; exemptions for congressional mandates preserve legislative authority. No overt bias, focusing on neutral, data-driven improvements.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-13: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2025-01-13: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-13 — PDF (13 pages)