House Bill 5818 would substantially revise Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act by restructuring how state agency rules are reviewed, classified, approved, and allowed to take effect. The bill creates a new standing legislative committee, the Joint Committee on Regulatory Oversight and Administrative Review, and gives it authority to examine existing rules and proposed nonmajor rules for legal authority, consistency with the underlying statute, reasonableness, and compliance with rulemaking procedures. It also establishes a new process for classifying rules as “major” or “nonmajor,” with major rules defined by economic impact or significant effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or social and cultural relations.
Under the bill, nonmajor rules would be subject to committee review and could be approved, disapproved with suggested amendments, or required to be amended and resubmitted. If the committee determines a proposed rule is actually a major rule, the proposal would be sent to the full legislature for action. The bill also changes when rules become effective, ties nonmajor-rule effectiveness to committee review and legislative timing, and allows the committee to suspend certain rules under specified conditions. In addition, it repeals several existing APA provisions, including sections 35, 45a, and 45c, and makes the bill contingent on enactment of House Bill 5817.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it shifts more control over administrative rulemaking from executive agencies to the Legislature. It would alter the Administrative Procedures Act’s definitions, eliminate the current nonmajor-rule review framework, and replace it with a new legislative oversight structure and new timelines for rule adoption and effectiveness. Agencies would face additional review obligations, and some rules could be delayed, amended, withdrawn, or blocked based on committee action.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to strengthen legislative oversight of agency rulemaking and to increase scrutiny of rules with broader economic or social effects. The overall tone of the proposal is procedural and reform-oriented rather than issue-specific.
The main point of contention likely concerns separation of powers and the balance between legislative oversight and agency autonomy. Supporters would likely favor greater accountability, more direct legislative control, and tighter review of regulatory impacts, while critics may view the bill as making rulemaking slower, more political, and less flexible for agencies. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad definition of major rules and the committee’s power to reclassify or reshape proposed rules, which could be seen as expanding legislative influence over executive branch administration.
HB 5818 would amend the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 to create a new legislative committee oversight structure for agency rulemaking, redefine key terms such as major and nonmajor rules, change filing and effective-date procedures for rules, and repeal existing APA provisions governing nonmajor-rule review. It would affect state agencies that promulgate administrative rules, the Secretary of State’s filing process, the Legislature’s review role, and regulated parties subject to agency rules, especially where rules have significant economic or social impacts.
Because no transcripts or votes are available, there is no direct record of support or opposition in committee. The bill’s structure suggests a reform-minded approach aimed at increasing legislative oversight and limiting unchecked agency rulemaking, which would likely appeal to lawmakers concerned about regulatory accountability. At the same time, the absence of recorded debate means the level of consensus or controversy cannot be confirmed from the provided materials.
The most likely contention is over whether the Legislature should have expanded authority to review, amend, or block agency rules before they take effect. Supporters would likely argue that the bill improves accountability and prevents overbroad regulation, while opponents may argue it undermines agency expertise, delays needed regulations, and blurs the separation between legislative and executive functions. The bill’s broad criteria for identifying major rules and its ability to force amendments or withdrawals would likely be the most disputed features.