Regulatory Accountability Act: New Rules Require Agencies to Prove Rule Benefits Outweigh $100M Costs

The Regulatory Accountability Act is essentially a major rewrite of the federal government’s instruction manual for making new rules. If you’ve ever felt like regulations just appear out of nowhere, this bill aims to make that process slower, more transparent, and much more focused on dollars and cents.

The $100 Million Hurdle: What Counts as a Major Rule?

This bill introduces clear new definitions, and the most important one is the “Major Rule.” A rule earns this title if it’s expected to have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more (Sec. 2). That’s the threshold where the heavy lifting begins. For any rule hitting that mark—or one that significantly harms competition, jobs, or public safety—agencies must now perform a deep-dive analysis. They have to prove, with detailed explanations, that the rule’s benefits justify its costs, and they have to consider a reasonable number of alternatives (at least three) before moving forward (Sec. 3).

Think of it this way: If the EPA wants to issue a new clean air standard that will cost the auto industry $150 million a year to implement, they can’t just say, “It’s good for the environment.” They now have to quantify that benefit and explain why their chosen solution is better than, say, a tax incentive or a performance goal. This means more paperwork and more time for agencies, but also potentially better-vetted regulations for businesses and consumers.

The OIRA Gatekeeper and the Slowdown

One of the biggest changes is the massive increase in power given to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), led by the Administrator. Before an agency can even publish a proposed rule, they must submit it to OIRA for pre-publication review (Sec. 3). This effectively makes OIRA the gatekeeper for all significant federal regulations. If OIRA decides a rule doesn't comply with the new cost-benefit principles, they can send it back to the agency.

This centralization of power is paired with a mandatory slowdown. For major rules, the public comment period jumps from the standard 60 days to at least 90 days (Sec. 3). Plus, if the agency thinks a rule might be major, they have to publish an “advanced notice” at least 90 days before the proposed rule even drops, inviting the public to suggest alternatives. If you’re a small business owner dealing with a potential new regulation, you’ll have more time to weigh in, but the wait for a final decision could be significantly extended.

No More PR Campaigns and the 10-Year Checkup

For anyone who follows rulemaking, there’s a fascinating provision on agency communication. Once a rule is proposed, agencies are generally prohibited from communicating with the public in a way that advocates for or against the rule (Sec. 3). This is designed to stop agencies from running public relations campaigns for their own proposals while the comment period is open, ensuring a level playing field for public input.

Another major change is the mandatory 10-year review for every major rule. When a major rule is finalized, the agency must include a framework for assessing its effectiveness within 10 years (Sec. 3). They have to analyze if the rule actually achieved the benefits they predicted and if the costs were what they expected. This is a huge win for accountability; it forces the government to clean out the regulatory attic and prove that old rules are still necessary and effective.

The Fine Print on Judicial Review

While the bill increases transparency in rulemaking, it severely limits judicial review over the Administrator of OIRA. Section 4 explicitly states that any action or inaction by the Administrator under these new procedural rules cannot be reviewed by a court at all. This means that while you can challenge the agency that wrote the rule, you can’t challenge OIRA’s procedural decisions, like whether they reviewed the rule properly or if they were right to call a rule “major.” This concentrates significant procedural power in one office without the usual judicial check.

Furthermore, the bill changes how courts review an agency’s interpretation of its own rules. While courts must still give “proper respect” to the agency’s view, they now have to decide legal questions de novo (freshly), taking into account factors like the quality of the agency’s reasoning and consistency (Sec. 4). This could make it easier for courts to overturn an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, creating uncertainty in areas where agencies previously had a lot of deference.