Requires a state agency to repeal two existing rules before enacting a new one
Impact
Should HB1714 be enacted, it will fundamentally alter how state agencies develop and implement regulations. The legislation is poised to create an environment that not only reassesses existing rules but also limits the proliferation of new ones without careful consideration of existing regulations. This could lead to fewer regulations overall, potentially benefiting businesses by reducing compliance costs and creating a more predictable regulatory climate. However, it may also risk removing beneficial regulations that protect public welfare and safety if they are deemed unnecessary under the new framework.
Summary
House Bill 1714 seeks to amend the administrative rule-making process in the state of Missouri by requiring that any new rule proposed by a state agency, commission, or board must also include the repeal of at least two existing rules. This measure aims to reduce the overall regulatory burden imposed by state agencies, encouraging a more streamlined and efficient rule-making process. The bill emphasizes the necessity of statutory authority, ensuring that no agency rule can be valid without proper legislative backing, and sets forth criteria under which rules can be deemed invalid if found to be arbitrary or overly burdensome.
Contention
The bill has raised discussions on the balance between regulatory efficiency and the necessity of comprehensive oversight. Proponents argue that it will reduce 'red tape' and simplify compliance for businesses, while critics warn that it could lead to significant gaps in consumer and environmental protections. The provision that rules should not be burdensome or inequitable is particularly contentious, as it opens the door for interpretations that could undermine established rules that serve public interests.
Notable points
Key concerns surrounding HB1714 include its potential to create regulatory gaps if state agencies prioritize repeal over the introduction of necessary new regulations. There are fears that reducing the number of rules without proper assessment could diminish accountability and transparency within government operations. The debate reflects a broader discussion about the role of government in regulating business and protecting the rights of individuals.
Relating to the required repeal or amendment of two state agency rules before adoption of a new state agency rule that increases costs to regulated persons.