HB3668 would amend the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act to add a new fiscal-impact screen for agency rulemaking. Before a proposed rule moves into the second notice period, an agency would have to conduct a good-faith analysis of the net new costs the proposal would impose on private-sector entities and on local governments and other taxing bodies, excluding the State itself. If the analysis shows net new costs, the proposed rule text would have to include relief measures to offset those costs.
The bill also bars adoption or filing of any rule, amendment, or repeal that imposes net new costs on those covered entities. It requires the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules to review compliance with these new requirements and authorizes suspension or prohibition of a rule if an agency fails to comply. In addition, the bill creates a private right of action for a party injured by a rule adopted in violation of the new requirements, giving affected parties a direct legal remedy.
Impact
If enacted, HB3668 would significantly change how Illinois agencies draft and advance administrative rules under the APA, adding a mandatory cost-offset requirement for rules affecting private businesses, local governments, and other taxing bodies. It would amend Section 5-40 and add a new Section 5-132, layering a fiscal constraint onto the existing notice-and-comment and Joint Committee on Administrative Rules review process. The bill would also expose agencies to litigation from parties claiming injury from noncompliant rulemaking, potentially increasing procedural scrutiny and legal risk for regulatory actions.
Sentiment
The bill’s framing suggests a generally anti-regulatory or regulatory-cost-containment approach, with an emphasis on protecting private-sector and local-government entities from new burdens imposed through agency rulemaking. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to stakeholders concerned about administrative overreach and compliance costs.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s strong restriction on agency rulemaking: it does not merely require cost analysis, but appears to prohibit rules that create net new costs unless offsetting relief is included. That could be viewed by supporters as a necessary check on regulatory burdens, while opponents may see it as an overly rigid constraint that could block needed public protections or make rulemaking impractical. Another likely issue is the private cause of action, which could be criticized by agencies and rulemaking proponents as inviting lawsuits and creating uncertainty around the validity of administrative rules.
Concerning The Development And Presentation Of Fiscal Impact Statements Concerning The Fiscal Impact Of Statewide Initiative And Referendum Measures And Legislatively Referred Constitutional Amendments.