Administrative Procedure:
HB 305 would substantially revise Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act by tightening limits on agency rulemaking and expanding legislative and public oversight of agency guidance and rules. The bill states that an agency may not adopt a rule or issue a guidance document unless it has express statutory delegation to do so, and it treats guidance documents that interpret statutes without such delegation as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. It also broadens the grounds for challenging rules and enforcement actions based on lack of authority, failure to comply with required cost analyses, and use of guidance documents.
The bill adds significant regulatory-analysis requirements. Agencies would have to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs for proposed rules, notices of change, and final rules, including a cost-benefit analysis showing projected benefits exceed projected costs. Agencies would also have to publish the underlying data, assumptions, and methods used in those analyses, conduct retrospective cost-benefit reviews four years after a rule takes effect, and incorporate lessons learned into future analyses. The bill further requires agencies to evaluate lower-cost alternatives, respond to them, and face invalidation of rules if they materially fail to comply with these requirements.
HB 305 also creates an automatic expiration system for rules. Most rules would expire eight years after their effective date unless readopted through rulemaking, while the Administrative Procedures Committee would set initial expiration dates for existing rules. Certain rules, including those required for federal compliance, constitutional authority, or agencies headed by elected officials, would be exempt from expiration but still subject to review. The Department of State would have to update the Florida Administrative Code to remove expired rules and note how they ceased to be effective.
In addition, the bill expands the Administrative Procedures Committee’s review role by requiring it to examine whether rules are expiring, whether expiration dates were properly set, and whether exempt rules are being reviewed as required. It also requires more detailed publication in the Florida Administrative Code, including expiration dates and links to incorporated materials. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s posture is deregulatory and skeptical of agency discretion, with a strong emphasis on legislative control, transparency, and cost containment. There were no recorded committee transcript snippets or votes provided, and the bill ultimately died in the Government Operations Subcommittee, although a companion measure passed in the Senate. That suggests the policy direction had support in at least one chamber, but the House process did not advance the bill to enactment.
HB 305 would amend multiple provisions in chapter 120, Florida Statutes, including the definitions of invalid delegated legislative authority, rulemaking authority, estimated regulatory costs, committee review, publication of rules, summary removal of expired rules, and challenges to rules. It would impose new statutory limits on agency rulemaking and guidance documents, require more extensive cost-benefit and retrospective analyses, mandate public disclosure of supporting data, and create an automatic expiration and readoption framework for most administrative rules. It would also expand grounds for administrative and judicial-type challenges to rules and enforcement actions, including attorney fee recovery in some cases.
The bill appears to have been framed as a government-accountability and regulatory-reform measure, with an emphasis on limiting agency overreach and increasing transparency. The absence of committee discussion excerpts and recorded votes limits insight into specific member views, but the bill’s progression suggests it had some policy support while not securing enough House committee approval to advance. The companion Senate bill’s passage indicates the concept had at least partial legislative backing, even though HB 305 died in the House subcommittee process.
The main points of contention are likely to have been the bill’s broad restriction on agency authority, especially the prohibition on guidance documents absent express statutory delegation, and the automatic expiration of rules, which could require agencies to repeatedly readopt existing regulations. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s expanded litigation and challenge provisions, including invalidation of rules for failures in cost analysis and the ability to challenge enforcement actions based on lack of express authority. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary checks on agencies, while opponents would likely argue they create administrative burden, legal uncertainty, and risk disruption of existing regulatory programs.