The "Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025" mandates that federal agencies provide advance notice and solicit public comment for major rules with significant economic or societal impacts, ensuring greater transparency and public input in the regulatory process. However, it also defines exceptions where advance notice is not required, such as when it is deemed not in the public interest or impractical.
James Lankford
Senator
OK
The Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025 amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to require agencies to publish advance notice of proposed rulemaking for major rules, providing the public with an opportunity to comment on potential regulations before they are formally proposed. This advance notice must include details about the problem the agency aims to address, regulatory alternatives under consideration, and the legal basis for the proposed rule. Exceptions are provided for situations where advance notice is unnecessary, not in the public interest, or impractical due to deadlines, as determined by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA's decisions on these exceptions are not subject to judicial review, nor are differences between the initial statement and the proposed rule.
New Rulemaking Bill Could Give Public More Say—But With a Catch
The "Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2025" aims to shake up how federal rules are made, but it's a mixed bag. The core idea? Get the public involved earlier in the process when agencies are cooking up "major rules." We're talking regulations with big-league impacts – think $100 million or more in annual economic effects, major price hikes for consumers or businesses, or serious shifts in things like employment, the environment, or public health (5 U.S.C. § XXX(X)(A-C), as amended by the bill).
"Advance Warning: Rules Ahead?"
Under this bill, agencies would have to give a heads-up at least 90 days before they officially propose a major rule. This "advance notice" would have to lay out the problem, possible solutions, the legal grounds for the rule, and – most importantly – ask for public feedback for at least 30 days (5 U.S.C. § XXX(b)(1-4)). Think of it like a "coming soon" trailer for regulations, giving everyone a chance to weigh in before the main feature drops.
For example, if the EPA is considering new limits on carbon emissions from power plants (a rule that would easily hit that $100 million mark), they'd have to publish an advance notice. This notice would explain the problem (e.g., climate change impacts), different ways they could tackle it (e.g., carbon capture tech, emissions trading), and the laws that give them the authority to do it. Then, everyone – from industry groups to everyday citizens – could chime in with their thoughts and concerns before the official proposal is even written.
"The OIRA Exemption: Where Things Get Tricky"
Here's where it gets complicated. The bill has some significant exceptions. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) – a powerful but little-known White House office – can waive the advance notice requirement if it decides it's "not in the public interest," "redundant," or "impractical" (5 U.S.C. § XXX(c)(2)(A-C)). OIRA can also skip the advance notice for rules it deems "routine or periodic." And here's the kicker: OIRA's decisions on these exceptions? They can't be challenged in court (5 U.S.C. § XXX(d)(1)).
That means OIRA gets a lot of power to decide which rules get early public scrutiny and which ones don't. And that power is largely unchecked. It could be used to streamline things, prevent delays and bypass public comments, or it could allow some major regulations to fly under the radar. The bill also says that any differences between the agency's initial heads-up and the final proposed rule also can't be challenged in court (5 U.S.C. § XXX(d)(2)).
"Real-World Rollout: More Voices, or More Red Tape?"
This bill presents a real trade-off. On the one hand, it could mean more transparency and a better chance for regular folks, small businesses, and community groups to shape regulations that affect their lives. On the other hand, it could create more bureaucratic hurdles, potentially slowing down the whole rulemaking process. And the OIRA exceptions raise questions about how much power one office should have to decide when the public gets a sneak peek – and when they don't.
It is also worth noting that the bill's sponsor, James Lankford, receives considerable financial support from industries like Oil & Gas and Securities & Investment. These sectors could see benefits if this bill's added steps slow down or create obstacles for new regulations, especially those that could impact their financial performance.