The Regulation Decimation Act requires every federal agency to repeal ten existing rules that are, "to the extent practicable," related to a proposed new rule before it may publish that new rule. For major rules the bill adds a numerical cost constraint: the agency may not issue the major rule unless the combined cost of the repealed rules is greater than or equal to the cost of the new major rule, and the Administrator of OIRA certifies that the cost condition is met.
The bill also requires immediate agency self-reviews of costly, duplicative, ineffective, or outdated regulations and periodic Presidential reporting on rule counts and reductions.
This is a structural change to how agencies approach regulatory updates. It replaces incremental amendment with a one-in-ten-out style constraint that centralizes final cost certification at OIRA, creates narrow exemptions for internal or deregulatory revisions, and imposes reporting duties.
The practical effect will be to reshape agency rulemaking priorities, slow the issuance of new rules that lack obvious candidates for repeal, and concentrate gatekeeping authority at OMB/OIRA.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars agencies from issuing any new rule unless they repeal ten existing rules that are, where practicable, related to the new rule. For major rules it also requires that the new rule’s cost be less than or equal to the total cost of the repealed rules and that OIRA certify this comparison. Repeals must be published in the Federal Register.
Who It Affects
All federal agencies as defined by 5 U.S.C. §551 that issue rules imposing costs or responsibilities on non‑governmental persons or state/local governments. It also increases workload for OMB/OIRA, and affects regulated industries, state and local governments, and stakeholders who rely on agency protections or requirements.
Why It Matters
The measure replaces qualitative governance with a quantitative gating mechanism that can block rules even when statutory mandates or urgent risks exist. It shifts substantive oversight and final cost judgment to OIRA and creates operational and legal frictions for agencies attempting to fulfill statutory duties or update regulations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core mandate is straightforward: an agency cannot put a new rule on the books unless it first repeals ten other rules that are related to the new rule "to the extent practicable." "Related" is not exhaustively defined in the bill, so agencies must make judgment calls tying specific repeals to new actions. For rules designated as "major" under the existing definition in 5 U.S.C. §804, the bill adds a numerical constraint: the aggregate cost of the ten (or more) repealed rules must be greater than or equal to the cost of the new major rule, and OIRA must certify that comparison before the rule can proceed.
Mechanically, the bill makes publication a required step: any rule repealed to satisfy the requirement must be published in the Federal Register, preserving public record of the deletions. The statute limits its scope to rules that impose costs or responsibilities on nongovernmental persons or state/local governments and carves out exceptions for purely internal agency policies or procurement, as well as for rule revisions expressly intended to reduce burdens or compliance costs.To jumpstart compliance, the bill forces each agency to submit, within 90 days of enactment, a report to Congress and OMB listing rules that the agency identifies as costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated.
That forced inventory is designed to create a candidate pool for the mandated repeals. At a longer horizon, the President must report to Congress after five years on the number of rules in effect and progress in reducing rules over the prior five years, creating a statutory metric for aggregate regulatory change.The operational effect is to change agencies' project economics.
Agencies will need to pair proposed new regulations with a repeal strategy, perform cost comparisons for major rules, and coordinate with OIRA for certification. The bill does not amend underlying statutory duties that may require issuing a rule; rather it places a procedural bar that could delay or complicate compliance with those duties.
Agencies will have to decide which rules to eliminate — potentially removing obsolete, low-value, or administratively convenient provisions — and document repeal rationales publicly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires repeal of at least ten existing rules that are, “to the extent practicable,” related to any new rule before the new rule can be issued.
For a major rule the agency must both repeal ten related rules and have OIRA certify that the major rule’s cost is less than or equal to the total cost of the repealed rules.
Any rule repealed to satisfy the statute must be published in the Federal Register, creating a public record of deletions.
Within 90 days of enactment each agency must report to Congress and OMB identifying agency rules judged costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated to create a candidate pool for repeals.
The statute applies only to rules that impose costs or responsibilities on nongovernmental persons or state/local governments and exempts internal agency policies/procurement and deregulatory revisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s name as the "Regulation Decimation Act." This is purely formal but signals the bill’s deregulatory design, which matters for understanding legislative intent and for stakeholders tracking rule changes under the statute.
Ten‑out requirement for ordinary rules
Bars agencies from issuing a new rule unless they have repealed ten or more existing rules that, where practicable, are related to the proposal. Practically, agencies must create a linkage between candidate repeals and the new rule; there is no numerical flexibility below ten. That linkage will drive legal and policy choices about what counts as "related" and may force agencies to identify low‑impact or superficially related rules to clear the threshold.
Major rule cost parity and OIRA certification
Adds a second layer for major rules: agencies must repeal ten or more related rules and ensure the cost of the new major rule is less than or equal to the cost of those repealed. The Administrator of OIRA must certify the cost comparison. This gives OIRA a statutory certification role and requires agencies to produce comparable cost estimates for rules that may differ widely in scope, timeline, and affected populations, creating methodological and interagency coordination duties.
Publication and scope exceptions
Requires publication in the Federal Register of any rule repealed under the Act, preserving transparency. The section limits the statute to rules that impose costs or responsibilities on non‑governmental persons or state/local governments, excluding internal agency policy/procurement rules and rules being revised to be less burdensome. These carveouts narrow the reach but leave open disputes about what constitutes an "internal" rule or a legitimate deregulatory revision.
Agency inventory and five‑year presidential report
Directs heads of agencies to submit, within 90 days of enactment, a review identifying costly, duplicative, ineffective, or outdated rules and any other unnecessary restrictions — a mandated regulatory inventory. It also directs a five‑year Presidential report on rule counts and reduction status. The short inventory deadline pressures agencies to prioritize faster internal review cycles and creates a public evidence base that Congress and OMB can use to monitor compliance.
Definitions
Adopts cross‑references to existing statutory definitions: 'agency' and 'rule' from 5 U.S.C. §551 and 'major rule' from 5 U.S.C. §804, and defines 'State' broadly to include D.C., territories, and federally recognized tribes. By relying on established definitions the bill minimizes definitional litigation over those terms but leaves 'related' and 'to the extent practicable' undefined.
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
- Regulated private-sector entities that face extensive rulebooks: They may see reduced net regulatory growth and fewer new compliance obligations if agencies remove existing rules before issuing new ones.
- Industries organized for deregulatory goals: Trade associations and regulated firms can push for repeal of nuisance or duplicative rules and force agencies to prioritize deletions that help their members.
- OMB/OIRA leadership: The bill codifies and expands OIRA’s certification and gatekeeper role for major rules, increasing OMB’s influence over whether significant regulations proceed.
- State and local governments seeking relief from federal mandates: Because the statute targets rules that impose costs on states and localities, those governments stand to benefit from fewer or lower‑cost federal regulatory actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and rulewriting offices: Agencies must identify and repeal ten rules for each new rule, prepare cost comparisons for major rules, publish repeals, and complete the 90‑day inventory, increasing administrative burden and diverting staff time from substantive policymaking.
- Public health, safety, and environmental beneficiaries: If agencies cannot find suitable rules to repeal, necessary protections may be delayed or blocked, imposing potential societal costs not captured in agency cost accounting.
- Smaller agencies with limited regulatory portfolios: Agencies with narrow rule sets will struggle to find ten related rules and may be disproportionately hampered in responding to statutory duties or emerging risks.
- OMB/OIRA budget and staff: OIRA must certify cost comparisons for major rules, likely increasing its workload and requiring more economic analysis resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between disciplined reduction of regulatory accumulation and the agencies’ obligation to respond to statutory duties and emergent risks: the bill enforces a hard numerical discipline that helps control regulatory growth but risks blocking or delaying rules that protect health, safety, or the environment when agencies cannot identify ten appropriate repeals or cannot justify cost equivalence.
The bill creates several unresolved implementation challenges. First, key terms are vague: "related" and "to the extent practicable" lack statutory markers, leaving agencies to develop interpretive frameworks that will determine whether repeal candidates are genuine policy tradeoffs or merely cosmetic deletions.
Second, the cost parity test for major rules raises serious methodological problems. Comparing costs across separate rules with different baselines, time horizons, beneficiaries, and discount rates is not a straightforward arithmetic exercise; agencies and OIRA will need to adopt consistent accounting rules or face disputes and litigation over the proper comparators.
Third, the statute does not change underlying statutory mandates that require agencies to promulgate certain protections. If a law directs an agency to issue a rule, the ten‑out requirement becomes a procedural choke point rather than a substantive repeal of statutory obligations.
That could produce legal conflicts, emergency rulemaking pressure, or regulatory under‑provision when repeal candidates are unavailable. Finally, the bill centralizes discretionary power at OIRA: certification authority and the public inventory give OMB leverage over agency agendas, which may politicize technical cost comparisons and invite inter‑branch tensions over administrative independence.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.