Regulation Decimation Act
HB710, titled the Regulation Decimation Act, would impose a “one-in, ten-out” style requirement on federal agencies. Before issuing a new rule, an agency would have to repeal at least ten existing rules that are, to the extent practicable, related to the new rule. For major rules, the bill adds a stricter test: the agency must repeal ten or more related rules and ensure that the cost of the new major rule is less than or equal to the cost of the rules being repealed, with certification by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The bill also requires agencies to review their existing regulations within 90 days of enactment and report to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget on rules that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary. Five years after enactment, the President must report to Congress on the number of rules in effect and the progress made in reducing rules over that period. The bill defines “agency,” “major rule,” “rule,” and “State” by reference to existing federal law.
HB710 would significantly constrain federal rulemaking by conditioning new regulations on the repeal of multiple existing ones, potentially reducing the overall volume of federal regulations and increasing the administrative burden on agencies before they can act. It would affect agencies issuing rules that impose costs or responsibilities on private parties, state governments, local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes, while exempting internal agency operations, procurement rules, and revisions that reduce burdens or compliance costs. The bill would also create new reporting obligations for agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, and the President.
The bill’s title and structure indicate a strongly deregulatory intent, and the available context shows it was introduced and referred to committee without recorded votes or hearing debate in the provided materials. Based on the text, supporters are likely to view it as a way to curb regulatory growth, reduce compliance costs, and force agencies to eliminate outdated or duplicative rules before adding new ones. No opposing statements are included in the record provided, but the bill’s design suggests it would likely draw criticism from those concerned about agency flexibility and the ability to issue timely public protections.
The main point of contention is the bill’s rigid repeal requirement, especially the mandate to eliminate ten existing rules before issuing a new one. Critics would likely argue that this could hamper agencies’ ability to respond to new problems, even when a new rule is necessary and beneficial, and that the cost-comparison requirement for major rules could be difficult to administer. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize the bill’s focus on eliminating costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated regulations and its attempt to keep the regulatory burden from expanding. Another likely dispute is whether the bill’s exemptions are sufficient to prevent it from blocking needed deregulatory or corrective rulemaking.