Michigan House Bill HB5672

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/24
• Refer: 4/25/24

Caption

Administrative procedure: rules; adoption of rules by state agencies more stringent than federal regulations; prohibit. Amends secs. 32 & 45 of 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.232 & 24.245).

Impact

The potential impact of HB 5672 is significant, particularly in terms of regulatory compliance for businesses in Michigan. By preventing state agencies from implementing more rigid rules than those established at the federal level, the bill is positioned as a means of reducing regulatory burdens on businesses. Proponents argue that this change could simplify compliance processes and promote economic activity by providing a more predictable regulatory landscape. However, this could also restrict the ability of state agencies to respond to local concerns that may necessitate more stringent regulations in certain areas, such as environmental protections or public health standards.

Summary

House Bill 5672 seeks to amend the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, specifically focusing on the rule-making processes of state agencies. The bill establishes that agencies may not adopt rules that are more stringent than existing federal regulations unless there is a demonstrable need to exceed these standards. This amendment aims to standardize agency practices and ensure consistency across state regulatory frameworks by limiting the extent to which state agencies can impose additional requirements on businesses and citizens beyond what the federal government mandates.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 5672 involve concerns about local governance and the ability of Michigan’s agencies to address specific state issues adequately. Critics of the bill perhaps fear that this approach may undermine the state's ability to create tailored policies that respond to unique regional challenges. They argue that keeping a state's authority to enforce stricter rules helps ensure that public interest and safety can be prioritized when necessary, and they worry that the bill may lead to a 'one-size-fits-all' approach that fails to consider Michigan's diverse needs.