The FREE Act directs every federal agency to inventory its permitting portfolio and determine whether a certification-based "permitting by rule" process could replace some or all of its case-by-case permitting. It frames permit-by-rule as a written-standards approach that moves agency activity from front-end gatekeeping to post-issuance audits and enforcement.
The bill pairs those evaluations with mandatory reporting to Congress and the Comptroller General, deadlines for agencies to create permit-by-rule processes where viable, new appeal rules and burdens of proof, and GAO oversight. The goal is faster, more predictable permitting; the bill accomplishes that by replacing some discretionary review with written standards, applicant certifications, and defined agency deadlines, but it also shifts the balance toward enforcement-after-the-fact and raises implementation questions for agencies and stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires each federal agency to submit a detailed inventory of permits and an assessment of whether each could be issued under a permit-by-rule system. For permit types deemed suitable, the agency must adopt a certification-based application process and a timeline-driven approval mechanism, and the statute creates new audit, enforcement, appeal, and fee-shifting rules to govern those permits.
Who It Affects
All executive-branch agencies subject to 5 U.S.C. 551 that issue permits (for example, EPA, Army Corps, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, DOT) and the regulated sectors that rely on federal permits—energy, infrastructure, mining, agriculture, and construction—along with agency legal and compliance shops, GAO, and federal courts handling disputes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts permitting from individualized discretionary review toward standardized certifications plus agency audits, promising faster approvals and greater predictability for many projects. That change also reallocates agency resources from front-end review to monitoring and enforcement and introduces procedural hooks—timelines, deemed approvals, and fee-shifting—that materially alter litigation and compliance incentives.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FREE Act makes agencies take stock: each must catalog the permits it issues, document the statutory and regulatory bases for each, map the steps the agency follows when reviewing applications, and explain the interests each permit protects. That inventory is not academic—agencies must say, permit by permit, whether a written-standards, certification-based model could replace current review and flag legal or practical hurdles to doing so.
Where an agency finds permit-by-rule feasible, the bill forces the agency to write the new process into regulation. Under that process an applicant need only certify that it meets each written standard the agency prescribes; the agency can then audit or request documentation, but it no longer performs the old gatekeeping review before issuing a permit.
The statute builds in procedural guarantees for applicants: the agency must contact the applicant within a short window if a required certification is missing; applications that contain all required certifications are subject to a firm deadline after which they are treated as granted if the agency has not acted; and any disapproval must identify the unmet standard, explain how to cure it, and permit an opportunity to fix the application prior to final denial.Enforcement is explicitly back-loaded. Agencies retain the authority to audit, require corrective action, suspend, or revoke permits after issuance if the required standards are not met, and applicants or permit holders can take agency denials or enforcement actions to federal district court.
The bill shifts the litigation dynamics: when an applicant sues over a disapproval or revocation the agency must carry the burden of proving its action was lawful, and the statute contains fee-shifting provisions that can require agencies to pay attorneys’ fees if they miss statutory reporting deadlines or if courts find denials were not substantially justified.Oversight is layered. The Comptroller General must review agency submissions for completeness soon after the reports are due and later report on agencies’ implementation progress.
The statute also allows agencies to maintain the existing permitting system alongside a permit-by-rule option so applicants can choose the path that fits their projects. The practical effect will be a heavier emphasis on clear, administrable standards up front and more active enforcement and auditing resources after permits are issued.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must submit a detailed permit inventory and an assessment of permit-by-rule feasibility within 240 days of the statute’s enactment.
For permit types an agency moves to permit-by-rule, the agency must establish a rule-based application process within 12 months of submitting its report.
An application containing all required certifications is deemed granted if the agency does not approve or disapprove it within 180 days of submission.
The agency must contact applicants within 7 days of submission if any required certification is missing, and the agency may audit certifications after issuance and suspend or revoke permits for noncompliance.
Courts reviewing denials or revocations put the burden of proof on the agency, and the statute provides fee-shifting where agencies miss reporting deadlines or are found not substantially justified in their decision-making.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name "Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act" or "FREE Act." This is a technical provision that anchors subsequent citation and references to the statute.
Why Congress is acting
Lays out Congress’s view that current federal permitting tends toward broad agency discretion and delays, frames permit-by-rule as a tool to reduce time and cost, and justifies shifting resources from front-end review to post-issuance enforcement. The findings matter because they provide statutory context for courts and agencies interpreting the Act’s procedural mandates.
Inventory and feasibility assessments
Mandates a 240‑day deadline for each agency head to submit a report listing permit types, the legal and regulatory requirements for each, step‑by‑step review processes, typical processing times, the interests each permit protects, and a determination whether permit-by-rule could replace current procedures (in whole or in part). Agencies must identify implementation obstacles for permits judged feasible and explain why permit-by-rule is not viable for others. Agencies may solicit public comment while preparing the report. A missed deadline also triggers a fee-shifting exposure: applicants who sue over agency delays in that window may recover attorneys’ fees if a court finds the agency unreasonably delayed and the applicant prevails.
How certification-based permitting must work
For permit types the agency identifies as suitable, the agency has 12 months after its report to promulgate a permit-by-rule process. The rule must list the specific substantive standards applicants must certify, allow filings consisting solely of those certifications (and any optional supporting documents), and set a mechanism where a completed application is deemed granted if the agency does not act within 180 days. The agency must contact the applicant within 7 days if certifications are missing. Post-issuance the agency may audit, require corrective action, or suspend/revoke permits for noncompliance; any disapproval must explain, with particularity, the unmet standards and allow time to cure. Appeals go to district court where the agency bears the burden of proof; if the court favors an applicant and finds the agency unjustified, fee-shifting applies.
Congress and GAO oversight; concurrent use of systems
Two years after agencies report, they must report again on implementation of permit-by-rule. The Comptroller General reviews agency filings soon after the first report deadline (for completeness/accuracy) and again after agencies report on implementation (for progress), and may supplement those reports. The Act explicitly allows agencies to run the old permitting system alongside a new permit-by-rule option where the agency sees value in both; applicants may choose which process to use.
Key statutory definitions
Defines core terms—agency and rule (per 5 U.S.C. 551), completed application (contains all certifications), permitting by rule, and substantive standard (the written criteria that qualify a party to perform the permitted action). These definitions constrain later interpretation: the Act predicates deemed grants and appeals on the concept of a 'completed application' and binds agencies to clear, written substantive standards.
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
- Project developers and regulated businesses in sectors dependent on federal permits (energy developers, infrastructure contractors, mining, agriculture, and construction): benefit from a predictable, standards-based pathway that can produce faster approvals and reduce initial agency gatekeeping costs.
- Applicants with routine or low‑risk activities: firms whose operations clearly map to written standards gain a faster, lower-cost route to authorization through certification rather than lengthy individualized review.
- Entities seeking greater predictability in timelines (project financiers, investors, and state/local permitting coordinators): a statutory deadline and 'deemed grant' mechanism reduce regulatory timing uncertainty and can improve project planning and financing.
- Applicants who prevail in court against unjustified agency action: the statute shifts litigation dynamics by placing the burden of proof on agencies and providing fee-shifting that can deter arbitrary denials.
- Congress and GAO: receive granular inventories and implementation reports, improving the legislative branch’s ability to assess permitting bottlenecks and to recommend or compel further reforms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (program offices and permitting divisions): must invest staff time and rulemaking resources to produce detailed inventories, craft clear substantive standards, and stand up audit and enforcement programs—work that could be substantial for complex permits.
- Small or resource‑constrained agencies: agencies without robust permitting infrastructure will face operational strain to meet reporting and rulemaking deadlines and to develop post-issuance monitoring capacity.
- Environmental and public-interest groups that rely on individualized permitting review: may lose an opportunity to shape permit terms through the case-by-case process and will need to shift to participation in rulemakings and post-issuance enforcement actions.
- Taxpayers and agency budgets: the shift toward audit and enforcement may require new appropriations; absent additional funding, agencies could be forced to prioritize enforcement unevenly or rely on less intensive audits.
- Courts and litigants: more suits challenging deemed grants, disapprovals, or revocations and fee-shifting disputes could increase caseloads and procedural complexity for district courts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether shifting from time‑consuming, discretionary review to a certification-plus‑audit model can deliver faster, more predictable permitting without eroding the statutory protections (environmental, safety, cultural) that individualized review was designed to protect; the Act solves delay by moving scrutiny after issuance, but that solution succeeds only if agencies have the resources, legal authority, and political will to audit and enforce effectively.
Speed via certification rests on reliable, enforceable standards and on agencies’ capacity to audit and to litigate effectively. If agencies adopt permit-by-rule but do not build robust post-issuance compliance programs, the Act risks producing formal approvals that mask noncompliance until harm occurs.
That danger is particularly acute for permits where harms are localized, cumulative, or require technical judgment that statutes currently assign to case-specific review.
Implementation will also confront legal and statutory constraints. Some permits are tied to statutory schemes that mandate individualized findings (for example, certain environmental statutes or tribal-consultation obligations).
Translating those duties into transferable substantive standards may be legally and technically difficult. Further, fee-shifting incentives create predictable litigation dynamics: agencies may face more suits both because applicants will litigate to trigger attorney-fee awards and because advocacy groups will litigate to contest broad standards.
Finally, defining meaningful, administrable 'substantive standards' across diverse agencies is a heavy lift; vague or poorly designed standards will produce either rampant litigation or weak environmental and safety protections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.