OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Issues New Guidance to Accelerate Deregulatory Actions

On October 21, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  issued a memorandum aimed at providing guidance for “Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions” to federal agencies. The guidance follows recent Executive Orders (EOs) and a Presidential Memorandum issued earlier in the Trump Administration that emphasized the Administration’s focus on deregulation as a driver of economic growth and government efficiency.

The Trump Administration’s Deregulatory Framework

The OIRA memorandum follows EO 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 6, 2025), and EO 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025), as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations (April 9, 2025). These directives required, among other things, that for every new regulation issued, at least 10 existing regulations must be repealed; mandated that federal agencies withdraw any regulations deemed “facially unlawful” under current Supreme Court precedent; and restricted agencies from issuing new regulations if those regulations did not meet certain budgeting requirements.

Accelerated OIRA Review Timelines

Under EO 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Sept. 30, 1993), OIRA reviews “significant” regulatory actions, including those that are economically significant or present novel policy issues. Agencies generally identify whether a rule is subject to OIRA review, but OIRA ultimately determines whether an action meets the significance threshold. That same EO sets a general 90-day timeframe for OIRA review.

Now, to counter what OIRA calls the “ossification” of administrative rulemaking—“the idea that rulemaking is overly burdened with too many procedural requirements”—the memorandum establishes new presumptive timelines for OIRA review:

• 28 days for OIRA review of deregulatory actions supported by factual records, and
• 14 days for OIRA review of agency repeals of “facially unlawful rules.”

It appears that OIRA expects agencies to use their discretion to determine whether a rule fits either of those categories.

Streamlined Compliance with Existing Executive Orders

Recognizing that many long-standing EOs that guide the rulemaking process were designed for new regulatory actions, OIRA is authorizing agencies to bypass certain procedural obligations when deregulating. OIRA provided a few examples of procedural requirements imposed by EOs that agencies can now “presume” do not apply to deregulation efforts:

• EOs on federalism (13132) and tribal consultation (13175) that require agencies to work with state and tribal governments on regulatory actions that substantially impact those governments;
• The EO that requires agencies to prepare a “Statement of Energy Effects” describing the effects of certain regulatory actions on energy supply, distribution, or use (13211); and
• The EO that requires agencies to assess and take appropriate account of the potential impact of draft rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations (13272).

Expanded Use of the APA “Good Cause” Exception

Perhaps the most consequential directive in the memorandum is OIRA’s endorsement of a broad application of the “good cause” exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The memorandum instructs agencies to repeal “facially unlawful regulations” without notice and a comment period where doing so would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(4)(B). It explains that, if a regulation is plainly unlawful, then “the agency lacks discretion and authority to retain it” and so “nothing that might emerge during the comment period can cure the regulation’s unlawfulness or overcome the agency’s non-discretionary inability to retain or enforce it.” The memorandum cites recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright (2024) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022), as guiding precedents for identifying unlawful rules.

Emphasis on Deregulatory Record-Building and Cost-Benefit Analysis

OIRA also encourages agencies to develop a “robust cost-benefit analysis” and quantitative and qualitative record to “buttress” deregulatory actions, even where the agency determines an existing rule is otherwise illegal. The memorandum underscores that deregulation—as opposed to regulation—offers distinct public benefits that should be spelled out in the record, including:

• Expanding private and commercial freedom;
• Generating cumulative economic benefits across sectors (e.g., energy and tech);
• Correcting prior overestimations of the benefits and costs of existing regulations; and
• Aligning enforcement priorities with resource realities.

Implications for Regulated Entities

This OIRA memorandum continues an aggressive deregulatory framework from the Trump Administration. Federal agencies are subject to strong direction to review and repeal existing regulations and shorten rulemaking review periods. For regulated industries, this could lead to rapid shifts in compliance obligations, particularly in highly regulated sectors, such as environmental and energy.

Stakeholders should monitor OIRA’s Regulatory Review Dashboard and public dockets on Regulations.gov for upcoming deregulatory actions, and should consider engaging in the rulemaking process. Sidley is closely tracking developments under this memorandum.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.