Requires the general assembly to approve proposed administrative rules with a fiscal note over $250,000
Summary
SB 350 creates a new section in Missouri’s administrative rules law that adds legislative approval requirements for certain proposed agency rules. If a state agency proposes to adopt, amend, or rescind a rule that would require or result in more than $250,000 per year in public spending, or would impose more than $250,000 per year in costs or lost income on individuals or businesses, the agency must notify the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in addition to existing notice requirements.
The bill further provides that such a rule cannot take effect through the ordinary administrative rulemaking process. Instead, it must be approved by the General Assembly through a concurrent resolution under the Missouri Constitution before it becomes effective. The secretary of state would also be required to delay publication of the order of rulemaking until the constitutional review period for gubernatorial action has passed. Rules adopted under a separate emergency or expedited provision, or rules required to comply with federal law or secure federal funding, are exempted.
Impact
SB 350 would significantly change the balance of power between executive agencies and the legislature by subjecting high-cost administrative rules to direct legislative approval. It would amend chapter 536, RSMo, by adding section 536.180 and would make noncompliant proposed rules null, void, and unenforceable unless they meet the bill’s procedural requirements. The practical effect would be to slow or block implementation of certain agency regulations with major fiscal impacts on state government, local governments, businesses, and individuals, while preserving exceptions for federal compliance and certain emergency rules.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a legislative oversight measure rather than a policy-specific regulation, and the caption indicates its core purpose is to require General Assembly approval of high-cost administrative rules. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s structure, its likely appeal would be among lawmakers favoring tighter legislative control over agency rulemaking, while opponents would likely view it as an added procedural hurdle that could delay needed regulations.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s requirement that the General Assembly approve any proposed rule with fiscal effects above $250,000 per year, which shifts final authority from agencies to the legislature. Supporters would likely argue this increases accountability and prevents costly regulations from taking effect without elected oversight. Opponents would likely argue that it creates a bottleneck for rulemaking, could politicize technical regulatory decisions, and may delay rules needed for public administration, business regulation, or implementation of state programs. The federal-law and federal-funding exceptions may also be a point of discussion because they limit the bill’s reach in some areas but not others.