ERASER Act Mandates Three Regulations Cut for Each New One: Aims for Cost Neutrality in Major Rulemaking

The ERASER Act sets out to significantly cut down on federal regulations. The core of the bill is a 'three-for-one' rule: before any agency can introduce a new regulation, it must identify and repeal at least three existing ones. This requirement gets tighter for 'major rules'—those with a significant economic impact—where the new rule's costs must be fully offset by the costs of the rules being repealed.

Regulation Rollback

The Act pushes for a major shift in how regulations are made and maintained. It isn't just about cutting red tape; it aims to fundamentally change the regulatory process, making it harder to create new rules and potentially reducing the overall number of regulations over time. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is tasked to certify the cost of the regulations. The law (in Section 3) specifically targets rules that affect businesses, individuals, and state and local governments, excluding internal agency procedures or procurement rules.

For example, if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to introduce a new rule on emission standards (assuming it's a 'major rule'), it would not only have to find three existing regulations to eliminate but also ensure that the economic cost of the new emission standard doesn't exceed the combined cost savings from the repealed regulations. This could mean that to implement a costly new environmental protection measure, the EPA might have to remove several older, potentially less impactful, regulations.

Accountability and Impact

Beyond the immediate changes to rulemaking, the ERASER Act also wants a detailed look at the current regulatory landscape. Section 4 tasks the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with conducting a study within one year, and every five years after that. The GAO will count the total number of rules, the number of major rules and estimate the total economic costs. This is intended to provide a clearer picture of the regulatory burden and, theoretically, greater accountability.

While the aim is to reduce the burden of regulations and potentially cut costs for businesses and, indirectly, consumers, there are practical challenges. For instance, agencies might find themselves in a bind, needing to repeal regulations that still serve important purposes just to enact a new, possibly more critical, rule. There's also a risk that the focus on cost could overshadow other important factors, like public safety or environmental protection, especially if the cost assessments of rules become a point of contention or manipulation.