HB377, titled the Regulation Reduction Act of 2025, would impose a “one-in, three-out” style requirement on federal agencies. Before issuing a new rule, an agency would have to repeal at least three existing rules that are, to the extent practicable, related to the new rule. For major rules, the bill adds a cost test: the new major rule could not cost more than the rules repealed, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would have to certify that the new rule’s cost is equal to or less than the cost of the repealed rules.
The bill also requires agencies to publish any repealed rules in the Federal Register and to submit, within 90 days of enactment, a report to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget identifying rules that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary. The bill excludes internal agency policy or procurement rules and rules being revised to reduce burdens or compliance costs.
Impact
If enacted, HB377 would significantly constrain federal rulemaking by conditioning new regulations on the repeal of existing ones, especially for major rules affecting nongovernmental persons, states, local governments, and federally recognized tribes. It would likely reduce the volume of new regulatory actions and increase pressure on agencies to review and eliminate existing regulations, while also expanding reporting obligations to Congress and OMB. The bill would amend the practical operation of the Administrative Procedure Act framework by adding a new statutory prerequisite for rule issuance, though it does not appear to amend the APA text directly.
Sentiment
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context shows no formal debate history or vote-based sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and title, the measure appears to be framed as a deregulatory and regulatory-reform proposal, which typically draws support from lawmakers favoring reduced federal regulatory burdens and opposition from those concerned about agency flexibility and public protections. The introduction by multiple House Republicans suggests partisan support at introduction.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s requirement that agencies repeal three existing rules before issuing a new one, which critics may view as an arbitrary restriction that could prevent agencies from responding to new problems or updating outdated rules. The cost-parity requirement for major rules could also be controversial because it ties regulatory action to the estimated cost of repealed rules, potentially making it harder to issue significant new protections. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill would curb unnecessary, duplicative, and outdated regulation and force agencies to prioritize efficiency and burden reduction.
Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025This bill directs agencies to publish an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking at least 90 days before publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking for a major rule. A major rule is a rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines is likely to impose (1) an annual economic effect of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.The advance notice mustinclude a description of the problem the rule may address, alternatives under consideration, and the legal authority for proposing the rule; andsolicit and provide at least 30 days for submission of written data, views, and argument from interested persons.Any difference between such advance notice and the notice of proposed rulemaking may not be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law for the purposes of review under the Administrative Procedure Act.Advance notice is not required if the proposing agency is not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking or OIRA finds that advance notice is (1) not in the public interest, (2) duplicative of a similar process, (3) not practicable due to a required deadline, or (4) for a rule that is routine or periodic in nature.
Article I Regulatory Budget Act This bill requires the establishment of a federal regulatory budget to limit the costs of federal regulations. It also establishes requirements for disclosing the projected costs of federal regulations and procedures for enforcing the regulatory budget.