This bill amends chapter 6 of title 5, U.S. Code, to change how federal agencies must review existing and new rules and to increase public reporting about small‑entity impacts. It rewrites the periodic review language in 5 U.S.C. §610 and inserts a new judicial consequence into §611.
The practical effect is twofold: agencies must adopt an explicit review regimen and publish more information about which rules they consider not economically significant to small entities, and courts gain a stronger remedy when an agency fails to comply with the statute. That combination raises the operational burden on agencies and elevates the consequences of procedural lapses into a direct threat to a rule’s enforceability.
At a Glance
What It Does
Replaces the old 180‑day plan requirement with an ongoing periodic‑review duty, establishes 10‑year review windows for existing and subsequently adopted rules, requires an annual Federal Register list of rules that lack significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities (including the agency’s basis), and amends judicial-review provisions so a court that finds noncompliance must prohibit enforcement of the affected rule.
Who It Affects
All federal executive agencies subject to chapter 6’s rule‑review program, small‑business stakeholders that rely on Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) determinations, and regulated parties facing enforcement of rules that could be challenged under the statute. Federal courts and agency counsel will also face new procedural litigation pressure.
Why It Matters
The bill combines transparency obligations with a heightened judicial remedy, converting what has often been a compliance paperwork issue into a substantive enforcement risk. Agencies will need robust review schedules and administrative records; regulated entities will have clearer paths to challenge enforcement when agencies miss those marks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill edits two parts of chapter 6. First, it removes the old requirement that agencies publish a one‑time plan within 180 days and replaces that formalism with a standing duty to review rules.
For practical purposes, the statute establishes hard windows: every rule on the books at enactment must be reviewed within ten years, and any rule finalized after enactment must be reviewed within ten years of its final publication. Agencies will therefore need to inventory rules, set review dates tied to either the enactment date or each rule’s final‑rule date, and allocate staff or contract resources to carry out substantive reviews on that cadence.
Second, the bill forces a transparency step targeted at small‑entity analysis: agencies must annually publish, in the Federal Register, a list of rules they conclude do not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities," and they must state the basis for that conclusion. That requirement effectively turns an internal RFA determination into a public document that can be used by third parties to press challenges or to contest the adequacy of an agency’s reasoning.The judicial change is consequential.
The amended judicial‑review language directs courts, upon finding that an agency failed to comply with the rule‑review statute, to enter an order prohibiting enforcement of the affected rule. That is a stronger, more automatic remedy than the statute historically provided and creates immediate exposure: a procedural failure during the agency’s periodic review may be the basis for litigation that ends with the rule rendered unenforceable.
Agencies will need to build contemporaneous administrative records documenting their reviews and the bases for any small‑entity determinations to withstand potential challenges.Operationally, agencies should expect increased docketing work, interagency coordination (to avoid overlapping or conflicting review schedules), and possible budgetary requests for staff time or contractor assistance. Regulated parties and advocacy groups will likely use the annual small‑entity lists and the ten‑year review windows as focal points for petitions, FOIA requests, and litigation aimed at either removing outmoded requirements or blocking enforcement of rules whose reviews were procedurally defective.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill removes the statutory 180‑day requirement to publish an initial periodic‑review plan and converts the duty into an ongoing review obligation.
It requires agencies to review all rules that exist on the date of enactment within ten years and to review any rule adopted after enactment within ten years of that rule’s final publication.
Agencies must publish each year in the Federal Register a list of rules they conclude do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and they must state the basis for that conclusion.
The bill inserts a new paragraph into 5 U.S.C. §611 directing courts to prohibit enforcement of any rule for which the court finds the agency failed to comply with the statute.
The judicial amendment also modifies an existing paragraph by adding the qualification 'except as provided in paragraph (5),' tying the court’s discretion to the new mandatory enforcement prohibition.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s formal name—RESTART SUNSET Act of 2025—and establishes the bill’s caption. This is a drafting formality; it signals the drafters’ emphasis on sunset/review but carries no operative compliance obligations.
From a single plan to continuous review with 10‑year windows
Strikes the original language requiring each agency to publish, within 180 days of the chapter’s effective date, a plan for periodic review, and instead states that 'Each agency shall periodically review the rules.' The amendment also replaces the old plan timetable with explicit ten‑year review deadlines: rules existing on the enactment date must be reviewed within ten years, and rules adopted after enactment must be reviewed within ten years of their final publication. Practically, agencies must tag rules by their relevant review deadline and create or repurpose processes to document those reviews; the statutory text does not define 'periodically,' so agencies will need to translate the ten‑year deadlines into specific internal schedules and guidance to inspectors, counsel, and program staff.
Annual public list of non‑significant rules and required basis
Adds a duty for each agency to publish yearly, in the Federal Register, a list of rules the agency concludes do not have a 'significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities' and to state the basis for that conclusion. This turns what has often been an internal RFA determination into recurring public material; agencies will need to ensure the administrative record supporting those determinations is sufficiently documented and available to survive external scrutiny and potential challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act or the RFA.
Judicial remedy when agencies fail to comply
Edits the judicial‑review provision by inserting a new paragraph that requires courts to prohibit enforcement of any rule if the court finds the agency failed to comply with §610. The bill also inserts a cross‑reference in the existing paragraph (by adding 'except as provided in paragraph (5)') to reflect that courts’ remedies are now constrained where paragraph (5) applies. The text imposes a mandatory judicial remedy rather than leaving relief to equitable discretion, which increases the stakes of procedural compliance and likely shifts litigation strategies toward early procedural attacks.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small‑business advocates and trade associations — gain a recurring, public list identifying rules agencies view as non‑significant to small entities, which they can use to press for deregulatory action or to prioritize challenges.
- Regulated entities with outdated compliance burdens — benefit from the statute’s emphasis on systematic review, which increases the prospects that obsolete or duplicative rules will be identified and reconsidered.
- Public‑interest groups focused on regulatory transparency — receive a durable record (annual lists and published bases) that supports oversight, audits, and targeted litigation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and program offices — must inventory rules, schedule and perform substantive reviews on a ten‑year cycle, prepare Federal Register notices, and maintain administrative records; that work requires staffing, legal review, and potentially contractor support.
- Agency counsel and administrative lawyers — face more procedural litigation and must mount fuller contemporaneous records to defend small‑entity determinations and review processes.
- Federal courts — may see an uptick in statutory‑compliance litigation seeking prohibitory relief, increasing docket pressure and requiring courts to resolve questions about the scope and timing of the new enforcement prohibition.
- Rulemaking staff in small or resource‑constrained agencies — will absorb disproportionate operational costs because the statute’s requirements are uniform while agency budgets and capacities vary.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus certainty: the bill strengthens transparency and makes procedural compliance enforceable in a way that can quickly nullify regulatory obligations, but those same features undermine the stability agencies and regulated parties rely on and impose significant operational burdens on agencies that may lack the resources to meet heightened documentation and review expectations.
Several implementation ambiguities and tradeoffs stand out. First, the statute uses the phrase 'periodically review' but then imposes ten‑year review windows; the absence of an explicit minimum frequency for reviews (other than the ten‑year cap) gives agencies discretion that could undercut the bill’s intent unless agencies or OMB issue implementing guidance.
Second, the requirement to publish a 'basis' for concluding a rule lacks detail about content and evidentiary standards; agencies will need to decide how much analysis is necessary to avoid successful procedural challenges without creating an impractical new paperwork regime.
The judicial change is the most consequential risk. Directing courts to 'prohibit enforcement' is not the same as prescribing a specific remedy (vacatur versus injunction), but it pushes courts toward strong relief.
That creates incentives for adversaries to litigate technical or recordkeeping defects aggressively. Agencies may respond by over‑documenting or delaying routine actions to avoid exposure, which can slow regulatory housekeeping.
Finally, there is a capacity mismatch: the bill imposes uniform, recurring burdens without providing funding or adjusting timelines for smaller agencies, raising the real possibility of uneven compliance and selective litigation pressure against underresourced programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.