The bill amends the Administrative Procedure Act to require agencies to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register at least 90 days before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for any rule OIRA deems a “major rule.” It adds a statutory definition of “major rule” tied to OIRA’s determination—including a $100,000,000 annual economic effect threshold and a catch‑all for significant effects on competition, employment, health, safety, or international competitiveness—and defines OIRA by statute as the office in title 44.
The ANPRM must include a written statement setting out the nature and significance of the problem, data or categories of data the agency will consult, regulatory alternatives under consideration, and legal authority; solicit written input; and leave at least 30 days for comment. The bill creates several exemptions, vests OIRA with nonreviewable discretion to exempt rules, and limits certain judicial review over discrepancies between the ANPRM statement and the later NPRM.
This changes when and how regulated parties and the public can shape major federal rules and centralizes early‑stage gatekeeping in OIRA.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires agencies to publish an ANPRM at least 90 days before an NPRM for any rule OIRA classifies as a 'major rule.' The ANPRM must identify the problem, the data the agency will use, regulatory alternatives, and the legal authority, and must allow at least 30 days for written comment.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that issue economically significant rules, OIRA as the clearinghouse for major‑rule designations and exemptions, regulated industries and trade associations that want earlier influence on rule design, and public‑interest groups or state and local governments that supply technical data or policy views.
Why It Matters
It moves meaningful stakeholder engagement earlier in the rulemaking timeline, potentially shaping agency analyses and alternatives before a formal NPRM. It also centralizes exemption power at OIRA and narrows some avenues for judicial challenge, shifting administrative leverage and procedural risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB77 inserts an early checkpoint into the federal rulemaking process for highly consequential regulations. Instead of first circulating an NPRM, agencies must publish an advance notice that sketches the problem they intend to address, the kinds of data they will rely on, the legal authorities they could invoke, and the regulatory approaches under consideration.
That advance notice must sit in the Federal Register for at least 30 days to collect written input before the agency proceeds to a formal proposal stage.
The bill relies on OIRA to decide which rules are “major,” using a statutory $100 million economic threshold plus broader impacts on competition, employment, public health and safety, and international competitiveness. Because OIRA controls both the major‑rule label and three narrow exemption pathways, the office effectively gains early oversight authority: it can exempt categories of routine or periodic major rules, waive the requirement when compliance would not serve the public interest or would duplicate other robust processes, or excuse compliance when statutory or court deadlines make it impracticable.Practically, the ANPRM is not a mere notice; it is a required disclosure and solicitation step.
Agencies must identify the data they intend to consult, explain alternatives they are weighing, and provide the legal basis for potential regulatory action. Those obligations push more of the substantive analytic framing upstream—so counsel and compliance teams need to monitor the Federal Register for ANPRMs to influence notice content before formal cost‑benefit work or rule text is finalized.The bill also tightens the review landscape: OIRA’s exemption determinations are carved out of judicial review, and courts may not treat deviations between an agency’s ANPRM statement and its later NPRM as arbitrary and capricious under the usual standard.
That combination of earlier public participation with constrained judicial remedies changes both the incentives agencies face and the tools stakeholders have for challenging process failures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires agencies to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking at least 90 days before an NPRM for any rule OIRA designates a “major rule.”, It defines “major rule” by statute to include an annual economic effect of $100,000,000 or more and broader significant effects on competition, employment, health, safety, or U.S. competitiveness.
Each ANPRM must include a written statement identifying the problem, the data or categories of data the agency will consult, regulatory alternatives under consideration, and the legal authority for the potential rule.
The ANPRM must solicit written data, views, and argument and remain open for at least 30 days for submissions before the agency publishes an NPRM.
OIRA may exempt major rules from the ANPRM requirement for public‑interest, duplicative‑process, statutory‑deadline, or routine‑rule reasons, and those OIRA exemption decisions are not reviewable in court; courts also may not treat differences between the ANPRM statement and a subsequent NPRM as arbitrary and capricious.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the statute the short name “Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025.” This is purely titular and has no substantive effect on interpretation or implementation.
Defines ‘major rule’ and cites OIRA
The bill amends the APA definitions to add a statutory definition of “major rule” that echoes existing executive‑branch practice but codifies the $100 million threshold and a nonnumeric catch‑all for significant effects on competition, employment, public health and safety, and international competitiveness. It also statutorily defines the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as the office in title 44, cementing OIRA’s central role in applying the new requirements.
90‑day advance notice requirement
This provision requires agencies to publish an ANPRM in the Federal Register not later than 90 days before an NPRM for a major rule, subject to exceptions. The practical effect is an added floor in the rulemaking timeline that obligates agencies to disclose preliminary framing and opens an earlier window for stakeholder input, which will interact with agency planning and internal review schedules.
Mandatory ANPRM content and comment period
Specifies the minimum contents of the ANPRM: a written statement on the problem’s nature and significance, the data or categories of data the agency will consult, a general description of regulatory alternatives, and the legal authority. It also mandates solicitation of written input and a minimum 30‑day comment period. That requirement forces agencies to lock in at least some analytical posture publicly before issuing formal proposed rules.
Exemptions and limits on judicial review
Creates three exemption paths—statutory/court deadlines, impracticability or duplicative processes as determined by OIRA, and routine or periodic categories—and grants OIRA discretion to make those determinations. It further insulates those OIRA determinations from judicial review and bars courts from treating differences between an agency’s ANPRM statement and a later NPRM as arbitrary and capricious, narrowing procedural remedies for challengers.
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 industries and trade associations: get earlier, formal notice of an agency’s conceptual framing and the data it plans to use, enabling upstream advocacy on alternatives, scope, and analytic assumptions before a formal NPRM locks in choices.
- State, local, and Tribal governments and NGOs with technical expertise: gain a guaranteed early forum to present localized data, implementation constraints, or alternative approaches while agencies are still shaping their analyses.
- Compliance officers, in‑house counsel, and regulatory consultants: receive predictable signals earlier in the process so they can advise on strategy and evidence gathering ahead of costly proposal debates and can influence the identification of data sources and regulatory alternatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and rule writers: face added procedural steps, longer timelines, and increased documentation and stakeholder management burdens, which could slow rule development and require more staff time and analytic resources.
- OIRA: inherits expanded gatekeeper responsibilities and discretionary workload to classify major rules and issue nonreviewable exemption determinations, increasing its institutional influence and operating burden.
- Small federal offices and agencies with constrained resources or mandatory statutory deadlines: may struggle to comply with the 90‑day advance window and the required disclosures, especially when a statute or external timetable compresses rulemaking; they face potential conflicts between the ANPRM requirement and existing deadlines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between promoting earlier, more meaningful public participation by forcing agencies to reveal their analytic framing versus concentrating early control—and the power to exempt—in OIRA in ways that can delay action, advantage well‑resourced participants, and reduce judicial oversight of procedural fairness.
The bill enshrines an executive practice—early outreach and data transparency—into statute while handing OIRA new, insulated discretion. That combination creates three practical tensions.
First, the advance‑notice requirement improves early transparency but can be used strategically to delay or shape rules in ways that favor well‑resourced stakeholders who can mobilize quickly; early framing can freeze analytic choices and make later, substantively justified departures harder politically. Second, centralizing exemption authority at OIRA increases uniformity but concentrates power in an office that is not subject to civil‑service accountability in the same way as agencies; the statutory ban on judicial review of OIRA exemption decisions raises separation‑of‑powers and accountability questions and lowers legal deterrents to arbitrary use of exemptions.
Third, implementation details are foggy: the statute requires agencies to identify “data or categories of data” without defining those terms, and it exempts “routine or periodic” major rules without examples—creating room for inconsistent treatment across agencies and for litigation over what constitutes a routine category.
Operationally, the law will intersect awkwardly with statutory deadlines and emergency authorities. Agencies already constrained by court‑ordered or statutory timetables may rely on the impracticability exemption or risk noncompliance; that creates a two‑track system in which well‑resourced rulemakings undergo more public vetting and constrained rulemakings proceed without it.
Finally, insulating differences between the ANPRM statement and subsequent NPRM from arbitrary‑and‑capricious review reduces judicial leverage to police misleading or shifting agency narratives, which may leave stakeholders dependent on political or administrative remedies rather than courts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.