If enacted, SB1339 will significantly change the dynamics of rulemaking within the Arizona state government. Agencies will face new barriers to implementing regulations that might protect public interests, as they will need to await legislative sessions for approval on rules that exceed the specified cost threshold. This reformed process could lead to a backlog of proposed regulations and result in essential protections being delayed, exerting pressure on regulatory bodies to justify costs and convincing the legislature of the need for such rules.
SB1339 aims to introduce stringent regulations regarding the implementation of proposed administrative rules that are estimated to increase state regulatory costs. Specifically, if a rule is estimated to result in costs exceeding $500,000 within five years, it cannot take effect without prior legislative ratification. The bill mandates that any agency proposing such a rule must submit it to the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee at least thirty days before the next regular legislative session, ensuring legislative oversight for significant cost implications of new regulations.
The legislation emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in rulemaking, aiming to prevent the unregulated escalation of financial burdens on the state's economy. By requiring legislative approval for costly rules, the bill seeks to protect both businesses and taxpayers from potential adverse economic impacts associated with increased regulations. This change reflects a growing concern among legislators about the effects of administrative rules on state resources and economic stability.
In discussions surrounding SB1339, key points of contention have emerged. Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary measure to maintain fiscal responsibility and guard against unchecked regulatory expansion by agencies. They emphasize that this approach will improve the quality of governance by ensuring that substantial financial implications are thoroughly evaluated and approved by elected representatives.
Opponents of the bill, however, express concerns that it may hinder timely regulatory responses, particularly in urgent situations where regulatory changes are needed to protect public health and safety. They worry that the additional requirement for legislative ratification could lead to delays in the implementation of essential rules, ultimately compromising the state's ability to respond effectively to regulatory needs.