SB 30, the “Expediting Reform And Stopping Excess Regulations Act” or “ERASER Act,” would impose a new regulatory offset requirement on federal agencies. Before an agency could issue a new rule, it would have to repeal at least three existing rules that were issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking and that, to the extent practicable, are related to the new rule. The bill excludes interpretive rules, policy statements, and internal agency management or procurement rules from the repeal requirement.
For major rules, the bill is stricter: an agency could not issue a major rule unless it repealed three or more related rules and the cost of the new major rule is less than or equal to the cost of the rules being repealed. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would have to certify that cost comparison. The bill also requires any repealed rule to be published in the Federal Register.
The bill would apply to rules that impose costs or responsibilities on private parties, state governments, local governments, or tribes, but not to rules dealing with agency management, organization, personnel, or procurement. In addition, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to report within one year of enactment, and every five years thereafter, on the number of rules and major rules in effect and their estimated total economic cost.
The bill’s impact would be to significantly constrain federal rulemaking and likely reduce the pace of new regulations by forcing agencies to identify and eliminate existing rules before adding new ones. It would affect agencies across the executive branch, as well as regulated businesses, individuals, state and local governments, and federally recognized tribes that are subject to federal rules. It would also increase the role of OMB/OIRA and GAO in reviewing and tracking regulatory burdens.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure and title, it appears intended to appeal to supporters of deregulation and regulatory restraint, while likely drawing concern from those who view the repeal requirement and cost cap as too rigid or likely to hinder agencies’ ability to respond to new problems. A likely point of contention is whether requiring three repeals for every new rule, especially for major rules, would undermine necessary public protections or create administrative bottlenecks.
SB 30 would amend the federal regulatory process by creating a statutory “three-for-one” repeal requirement for most new agency rules and a related cost-offset test for major rules. It would not directly change substantive program statutes, but it would alter how agencies implement those statutes through rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also require publication of repealed rules in the Federal Register and mandate recurring GAO reporting on the number and estimated cost of active rules.
No votes or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from the available history. The bill’s title and design suggest a pro-deregulation, anti-regulatory sentiment among its sponsors, with the likely broader debate centered on reducing regulatory burdens versus preserving agency flexibility to issue needed protections and updates.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s mandatory repeal ratio: agencies would have to eliminate three existing rules before issuing any new rule, which critics may argue could delay or block necessary health, safety, environmental, consumer, or financial protections. The additional requirement for major rules—that the new rule’s cost be no greater than the repealed rules’ cost—could also be controversial because it ties regulatory action to a cost comparison that may be difficult to measure and certify. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a check on regulatory accumulation and compliance costs, while opponents would likely argue it imposes an overly rigid constraint on agency policymaking and implementation.