Enhancing legislative oversight of regulatory actions in Massachusetts
Impact
One of the most significant effects of H3891 would be the requirement for legislative ratification of major rules, allowing both branches of the Legislature to approve or reject proposed regulations. This introduces a new level of checks and balances in the regulatory process and promotes accountability within the agencies that create these rules. By shifting some of the regulatory power from agencies to elected representatives, the bill hopes to ensure that regulations align more closely with economic interests and provide favorable conditions for business operations.
Summary
House Bill 3891, introduced by Representative Nicholas A. Boldyga, aims to enhance legislative oversight of regulatory actions in Massachusetts. The bill outlines a comprehensive framework requiring agencies to prepare economic impact statements before proposing any 'major rules.' A major rule is defined as one likely to significantly impact economic growth, job creation, or small businesses, particularly if the estimated economic effect exceeds $1 million over five years. The introduction of this requirement emphasizes the importance of assessing potential economic consequences of regulatory actions on both businesses and the state economy.
Contention
Despite its intent to bolster economic considerations in regulatory processes, the bill is expected to meet contention from various stakeholders. Critics may argue that requiring legislative review could stall necessary regulations, particularly emergency rules intended for public health and safety, where timely action is crucial. Additionally, opponents could express concerns that the bill may limit the agencies' ability to enact regulations that are vital for public welfare, even if those rules face economic critique. The balance between regulatory necessary for staffing and health and ensuring economic viability will certainly be a focal point in discussions surrounding H3891.