The "Regulation Decimation Act" mandates that for every new regulation issued, federal agencies must repeal at least 10 existing regulations, ensuring that the cost of new major regulations does not exceed the cost of those repealed.
Rick Scott
Senator
FL
The "Regulation Decimation Act" mandates that for every new regulation issued, federal agencies must repeal at least 10 existing regulations, prioritizing those related to the new rule. For major regulations, the cost of the new rule must be equal to or less than the cost of the repealed rules, as certified by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Act also requires agencies to review and identify costly, ineffective, or outdated rules and submit reports to Congress on rule reduction progress.
Regulation Decimation Act: 10 Rules Axed for Every New One
The Regulation Decimation Act basically says that for every new rule a federal agency wants to put in place, they have to get rid of ten existing ones. And if it's a 'major rule'—meaning it has a big economic impact—the cost of the new rule can't be more than the combined cost of the ten they're ditching. (SEC. 2).
Cutting Through the Red Tape?
The idea is to slash regulations, but here's the catch: it applies to any rule that puts a cost or responsibility on, well, pretty much anyone outside the federal government itself (SEC. 2). Think businesses, state and local governments, even individuals. The bill defines key terms like "agency," "major rule," and "rule," but the definition of what is 'related to the new rule' is very broad. (SEC. 2).
There are a few exceptions: rules about internal agency stuff, how the agency buys things, or if they're actually reducing the burden of a rule (SEC. 2). But otherwise, it's a 10-for-1 swap.
Real-World Rollout
Imagine a small construction company. New safety regulations come out requiring upgraded equipment (let's say, better scaffolding). To get that rule, ten others—maybe about environmental impact reports, worker training, or even paperwork requirements—have to go. Will those ten be directly related? Maybe, maybe not – the bill leaves a lot of wiggle room. (SEC. 2)
Or picture a local bakery dealing with food safety rules. A new rule about allergen labeling might mean ten other rules, perhaps about inspections or waste disposal, get tossed out. The question is, are we trading one kind of safety for another?
The Accountability Angle
Within 90 days of this Act becoming law, every agency head has to send a report to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, listing all their rules and flagging the ones that are 'costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated' (SEC. 2). Five years in, the President has to report on the total number of rules and how much they've been reduced (SEC. 2). This could lead to a lot of pressure to cut rules, even if they're serving a purpose.
The Bottom Line
While cutting red tape sounds good, this bill's approach is like using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel. It forces agencies to prioritize cost above all else, and the 10-to-1 ratio could lead to gutting important protections just to get any new rule through. It might make things easier for some businesses, but it could also create a lot of unintended consequences for everyone else.