Regulation Decimation Act
SB 712, the “Regulation Decimation Act,” would impose a new federal regulatory offset requirement on agencies before they can issue new rules. In general, an agency could not issue a rule unless it first repeals at least 10 existing rules that are, to the extent practicable, related to the new rule. For major rules, the bill adds a second constraint: the agency must repeal 10 or more related rules and the cost of the new major rule must be less than or equal to the cost of the rules being repealed, with certification by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The bill also requires publication in the Federal Register of any repealed rules and directs each agency head, within 90 days of enactment, to report to Congress and OMB on rules that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary. Five years after enactment, the President must report to Congress on the total number of rules in effect and the progress made in reducing rules over that period. The bill excludes internal agency policy, procurement rules, and revisions that make rules less burdensome or reduce compliance costs.
SB 712 would significantly alter federal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act framework by creating a mandatory “10-for-1” repeal requirement for most new rules and a cost-neutrality test for major rules. It would affect executive agencies broadly, including rules that impose costs or responsibilities on private parties, state governments, local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes, while exempting internal agency operations and deregulatory revisions. The bill would likely reduce the number of new regulations issued and could force agencies to identify and eliminate existing rules before adopting new ones, changing how agencies prioritize and justify regulatory action.
The bill’s framing and title indicate a strongly deregulatory, anti-bureaucratic posture, and the available context shows it was introduced by Republican sponsors and referred to committee without recorded votes or hearings in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote tallies, there is no documented bipartisan debate in the record provided. The overall sentiment available from the bill text is supportive of regulatory reduction and skepticism toward new federal rules.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth and rigidity of the repeal mandate, the practical difficulty of finding 10 related rules to repeal, and the cost-comparison requirement for major rules. Critics would likely argue the bill could hinder agencies’ ability to respond to new problems, undermine public protections, and create administrative burdens by requiring rule offsets even when existing rules are still useful. Supporters would likely argue it would curb overregulation, reduce compliance costs, and force agencies to eliminate outdated, duplicative, or ineffective rules before adding new ones.