The bill is poised to create significant shifts in the regulatory landscape, particularly concerning how state agencies formulate and implement rules with considerable financial impacts. This could lead to delays in regulatory changes as agencies will need to prepare comprehensive economic analyses, thus impacting how quickly agencies can respond to needs and adapt practices. Furthermore, regulations deemed necessary for compliance with federal law are exempt from these new requirements, ensuring that essential rules maintain continuity.
Summary
House Bill 402 addresses the limitations on the promulgation of rules by state agencies that could have substantial financial costs. Specifically, the bill dictates that if a proposed rule's aggregate financial cost is projected to be one million dollars or more over five years, it requires at least a two-thirds vote for adoption. For rules with costs exceeding ten million dollars, unanimous approval is necessary. This change aims to ensure greater scrutiny and control over financial implications associated with regulatory decisions made by governmental entities.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 402 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that it adds necessary oversight and accountability to the rule-making process, protecting businesses and stakeholders from potentially burdensome regulations without adequate consideration of their effects. However, critics fear it may hinder agencies’ abilities to enact timely regulations to address pressing issues, thereby impairing governmental functions. The discussion reflects broader concerns about balancing regulation with economic impact and the need for efficient governance.
Contention
A central point of contention is the threshold levels set for when legislative approval is mandated. Some lawmakers worry that the financial thresholds may be overly cautious, potentially stalling essential regulatory updates in areas that require prompt action. Others believe that this is a necessary safeguard against ill-considered regulations that could harm the economic landscape. As such, discussions on the bill have highlighted the ongoing debate about the role of government oversight in regulatory affairs and the realities of financial accountability.