The Zero Based Regulations Act requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to publish an annual schedule directing agencies to review parts of the Code of Federal Regulations so that roughly 20 percent of an agency’s regulations are reviewed each year. Crucially, the bill directs agencies to repeal each CFR part before that part’s review, then run a retrospective analysis to decide whether to reinstate a rule.
The bill also imposes a temporary moratorium—from enactment through the end of the fiscal year in which it becomes law—on new rulemaking unless narrow conditions are met: the action must aim to reduce burden or meet limited objectives, repeal or simplify an existing rule so net burden declines, include public hearings, and be supported by standardized prospective and retrospective analyses. The measure centralizes review authority in OIRA, requires agencies to name an administrative rules coordinator, and sets publication and timing requirements intended to make reviews transparent and recurring.
At a Glance
What It Does
OIRA must publish an annual review schedule that targets about 20% of an agency’s CFR parts each year. Before reviewing a part, the agency must repeal that part, perform a standardized retrospective analysis, and, to reinstate a rule, complete APA procedures, hold public hearings, and comply with a cost cap on the new rule.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies and their rule writers, OIRA/OMB, the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office, regulated industries and compliance teams, and stakeholders who rely on regulatory protections such as public-health and environmental groups.
Why It Matters
The bill flips the usual presumption by forcing repeal before review and gives OIRA centralized control over review timing, which could accelerate deregulation while creating potential regulatory gaps. It also standardizes cost and benefit analysis requirements and limits agencies’ ability to issue new rules during the covered fiscal period.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core mechanism is an OIRA-managed, recurring review of agency regulations. OIRA must publish a schedule each year that lists which CFR parts agencies will examine; the schedule must be public and the Federal Register must show scheduled and completed review dates on individual part cover sheets.
The bill directs OIRA to aim for roughly 20 percent of an agency’s regulations to be under review each year so that reviews are spread over time and theoretically allow public engagement on each rule-making action.
The bill takes an uncommon procedural step: before an agency conducts the assigned review of a CFR part, the agency must repeal that part. After repeal, the agency must perform a retrospective analysis that (1) compares the rule’s outcomes to the legislative intent of the enabling statute, (2) weighs benefits against the rule’s costs, and (3) looks for less restrictive alternatives.
OIRA must develop and publish a standardized process for that retrospective analysis within 180 days of enactment.If an agency wants to reinstate a repealed rule, it must start a new rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, but with added procedural demands: the agency must complete the retrospective analysis for the original rule and publish it on the agency website before holding at least two public hearings. Any reinstated rule may not impose more than 70 percent of the original estimated cost of the repealed rule, establishing an explicit cost-ceiling tied to the prior estimate.Separately, the bill bars agencies from initiating new rulemaking from enactment until the end of that fiscal year unless the rule is narrowly tailored to reduce burden, eliminate obsolete requirements, comply with a new statute or court order, or address a substantiated threat to health or safety.
New rules must repeal or significantly simplify at least one existing rule so net regulatory burden falls (the OMB Director can waive that requirement when rulemaking is statutorily mandated), conduct at least one public hearing, and complete a prospective cost-benefit analysis using a standardized OIRA form.The measure also adds administrative controls: each agency must designate an administrative rules coordinator within its general counsel’s office to oversee implementation; proposed amendments to a CFR part must use a single docket and be posted on regulations.gov; and any new part created must be subject to a retrospective review within five years and every five years thereafter. The Federal Register and electronic CFR site must display review dates for transparency.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Before reviewing any CFR part under the OIRA schedule, an agency must repeal that part—reviews occur after repeal, not as a precursor to repeal.
OIRA must develop and publish an annual schedule so that roughly 20% of an agency’s regulations are reviewed each year and post those dates on agency and Federal Register materials.
OIRA must issue a standardized retrospective-analysis process within 180 days; the required analysis must assess legislative intent, cost-justification, and less-restrictive alternatives.
To reinstate a repealed rule an agency must follow the APA, publish the retrospective analysis before public hearings (at least two), and ensure a restored rule’s estimated cost does not exceed 70% of the original rule’s estimated cost.
From enactment through the end of that fiscal year, agencies may not start new rulemakings unless narrowly tailored objectives are met, at least one existing rule is repealed or simplified so net burden drops, a public hearing is held, and a standardized prospective analysis is completed (with narrow statutory and presidential exceptions).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section adopts the terms "agency," "rule," and "regulation" from 5 U.S.C. 551, so the bill applies to administrative rulemaking and regulations governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. That alignment makes the statute’s coverage coterminous with ordinary federal regulatory practice and avoids introducing novel definitional disputes over what counts as a rule.
OIRA schedule and publication requirements
OIRA must produce an annual review schedule identifying which CFR parts each agency will review and publish that schedule on its website by January 1. In setting the schedule, OIRA must aim for about 20% of an agency’s regulations to be reviewed annually, a metric that forces bulk review planning and spreads reviews across years to permit public participation. The Federal Register must also display completed and scheduled review dates on individual part cover sheets so that the public can track upcoming reviews.
Repeal-before-review and retrospective analysis
The bill requires agencies to repeal a CFR part prior to the scheduled review—an unusual inversion of normal practice—and then perform a retrospective analysis that evaluates whether the rule meets its statutory goals, whether benefits justify costs, and whether less-restrictive alternatives exist. OIRA must create and publish a standardized retrospective-analysis process within 180 days, which will shape the evidentiary and methodological expectations agencies must follow during review.
Reinstatement rules, cost cap, and temporary new-rule limits
If an agency wants to bring back a repealed rule, it must promulgate a new rule under the APA, complete and publish the retrospective analysis before holding at least two public hearings, and ensure the new rule’s estimated cost is no more than 70% of the original rule’s estimated cost. Additionally, the statute prohibits most new rulemaking from enactment until the end of that fiscal year unless the action meets narrowly defined objectives (burden-reduction, compliance with new law or court order, or emergency threats), includes at least one public hearing, and is offset by repealing or significantly simplifying at least one existing rule so net burden decreases.
Administrative rules coordinator
Every agency head must designate an administrative rules coordinator within the general counsel’s office to oversee implementation of the Act. That creates a single point of internal accountability for the repeal-and-review workflow, OIRA coordination, public posting requirements, and ensuring agencies meet the procedural criteria for reinstatement and prospective/retrospective analyses.
Dockets, posting, and recurring review of new parts
The bill requires all proposed amendments to a CFR part to be consolidated in a single rulemaking docket posted on regulations.gov (or successor) to centralize public input. When a new part is adopted, agencies must perform a retrospective analysis within five years and every five years thereafter, and post the agency review dates on the part cover sheets and ecfr.gov so that new regulatory obligations immediately enter the recurring review cycle.
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
- Industries facing high-cost regulations — The repeal-before-review mechanism and the 70% cost cap on reinstated rules create opportunities to reduce or eliminate costly regulatory obligations that businesses and trade groups have long contested.
- OMB/OIRA — The statute centralizes control of review timing and analytic standards in OIRA, increasing its leverage over which regulations are reviewed and the methodologies agencies must use.
- Compliance teams and regulatory consultants — Standardized retrospective and prospective forms and a predictable five-year review cadence create new demand for analytic work and offer clearer expectations for documentation and planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and program offices — Agencies must devote staff and budget to repeal, retrospective and prospective analyses, public hearings, and to re-issue rules under APA processes; smaller agencies may face resource strain to meet the statute’s deadlines and publication requirements.
- Beneficiaries of regulatory protections (public health, environment, worker safety) — The repeal-first approach risks temporary or prolonged erosion of protections if agencies choose not to reinstate rules or if reinstated rules are materially weaker due to the 70% cost cap.
- OIRA and the Government Publishing Office — OIRA will bear substantial analytical and scheduling workload to publish schedules, develop standardized forms and methodologies, and monitor compliance; the GPO/Federal Register must add review dates to cover sheets and maintain public-facing records, increasing operational tasks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between aggressive burden reduction—implemented by presuming repeal and requiring net decreases in regulatory burden—and the need to maintain regulatory protections and legal compliance; the bill favors rapid deregulation and centralized oversight but does so at the cost of potential gaps in protection and heavy administrative strain on agencies and analytic offices.
The bill creates several implementation challenges and ambiguous edges. Requiring repeal before review reverses the usual presumption that a rule stays in effect while it is evaluated; that structure can create regulatory gaps if agencies are slow to complete retrospective analyses or decide not to reinstate rules.
The statute ties a reinstated rule’s permissible cost to the ‘‘original estimated cost’’ of the repealed rule, but many older rules lack clear baseline estimates or used different analytic conventions, raising questions about how to compute and audit the 70% ceiling.
Centralizing schedule control and analytic methodology at OIRA gives the White House a powerful tool to prioritize review of certain topic areas, but it also concentrates workload and may politicize which parts are reviewed when. The moratorium on new rulemaking is limited to the fiscal year of enactment, but its offset requirement (repeal/simplify an existing rule) and hearing requirements could chill necessary or time-sensitive rulemaking even outside that narrow period.
The bill does not fully reconcile its requirements with statutorily mandated rulemaking deadlines, emergency rules, or agencies’ legal obligations to implement laws, so conflicts between this Act’s procedures and other statutory duties are foreseeable and likely to generate litigation or require executive waivers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.