Sponsors
Want to know what is actually in this bill?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Section 3 cross-references section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and cites 44 U.S.C. 3501 in relation to publishing a 100-word summary of the proposed rule's internet address; does not itself amend the text of 44 U.S.C. 3501 in the provided excerpt.
Modifies a cross-reference in the third sentence of section 1002(g)(2) to replace "section 706(2)(E)" with "section 706(a)(2)(E)".
Replaces a list of referenced subsections in section 307(b)(1) to change which parts of title 5 are excepted for publishing final regulations implementing conservation measures.
Updates a cross-reference in the third sentence of section 308(c) to refer to the amended subsection labeling of section 706 in title 5.
Revises a cross-reference in section 6(c)(2)(B) to change which part of section 553 is cited.
Alters a cross-reference in section 1114 of the CARES Act to cite a different subsection of section 553 of title 5.
Changes a cross-reference in section 307(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act from one subsection of section 553 to another.
Updates a cross-reference in section 303(b) to cite a different subsection of section 553.
Multiple edits to section 304 to update cross-references to title 5: (b)(1) changes a citation from section 553(b) to 553(c); (d)(3) changes citation from 553(d)(3) to 553(g)(2); and (e) changes 553(b)(B) to 553(f).
In section 409, updates cross-references to section 706 subsections of title 5 to use the (a)(2) labeling.
And 63 more affected sections...
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced May 20, 2025 by Beth Van Duyne · Last progress May 20, 2025
Rewrites how federal agencies make rules and how courts review agency actions. It adds new definitions for guidance and for “major” guidance/rules (including a $100M economic threshold), gives an Administrator (via OIRA) expanded oversight and guideline-setting authority, requires economic analyses and public dockets with supporting materials, sets minimum public comment periods and publication timing, changes standards and scope of judicial review, defines “substantial evidence,” and exempts rulemakings already pending or completed at enactment. The Act does not change copyright law and mainly makes conforming cross-reference edits across Title 5 and other statutes.
In paragraph (5) of Section 551, replace the two-word phrase "rule making" with the single word "rulemaking."
In paragraph (6) of Section 551, replace the two-word phrase "rule making" with the single word "rulemaking."
In paragraph (13) of Section 551, strike the word "and" at the end of the paragraph.
In paragraph (14) of Section 551, replace the period at the end of the paragraph with a semicolon.
Adds paragraph (15) defining "guidance" as an agency statement of general applicability that (A) is not intended to have the force and effect of law, and (B) sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.
Who is affected and how:
Federal agencies and agency rulewriters: Face new and stricter procedural requirements — more detailed cost‑benefit and alternatives analyses, mandatory docketing of supporting materials, minimum comment periods, and closer oversight by an Administrator/OIRA. These requirements will increase workload, legal review, and record-keeping for rule development, especially for rules that meet the $100M "major" threshold.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) / Administrator: Gains expanded authority to set procedures, enforce oversight, and influence how agencies classify and document rules and guidance. OIRA's role in approving or guiding agency practices will likely increase.
Regulated entities and businesses: Will see longer and more transparent rulemakings, earlier access to technical materials, and potentially more opportunities to comment; but they may also face slower regulatory change and new hurdles if agencies respond by conducting more extensive analyses.
Courts and litigants: Judicial review standards change—courts must consider the whole record, have new limits on reviewing Administrator actions and non‑interpretive guidance, and will apply a statutory definition of "substantial evidence." This alters litigation strategies and may affect reversals or remands in administrative cases.
Public and stakeholders: Increased transparency via dockets and supporting materials could improve public participation, but minimum timelines and heavier documentation requirements could delay effective dates of important protections or requirements.
Smaller agencies and resource‑constrained programs: May face disproportionate administrative burdens to meet new analysis, docketing, and procedural standards, which could reduce or delay rulemaking activity.
Overall effect: The legislation tightens procedural controls over federal rulemaking, raises documentation and analysis standards—especially for economically significant rules—and shifts oversight power toward OIRA/Administrator and to the courts through changed review standards. The net result is likely greater transparency and procedural rigor but also longer rulemaking timelines, higher administrative costs, and potential shifts in regulatory output.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House