SB 891 is an administrative rules reform bill that changes how Missouri state agencies propose, justify, publish, and obtain approval for rules. It requires agencies to base rules on substantial evidence, determine that a rule is specifically authorized by statute and necessary to carry out that statute, and evaluate the effectiveness and cost of rules using reasonably available empirical data. Agencies must also post proposed rules and related materials on their websites in a standardized, publicly accessible format.
The bill adds a new layer of legislative and executive oversight for rules with significant fiscal effects. If a proposed rule would cost public entities, businesses, or individuals more than $250,000 per year, the agency must notify the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, and the rule cannot take effect unless the General Assembly approves it by concurrent resolution. The bill also requires gubernatorial approval before a notice of proposed rulemaking may be filed and makes noncompliant rules void and unenforceable, with limited exceptions for rules needed to conform to federal law or secure federal funding. It further requires agencies to publish substantive policy statements online and keep them current for public inspection.
Impact
The bill would substantially tighten Missouri’s administrative rulemaking process by narrowing agency discretion, increasing transparency requirements, and adding legislative and gubernatorial checkpoints before certain rules can take effect. It would amend section 536.016 and create new sections 536.180, 536.185, and 536.340 in the Missouri statutes, while repealing the existing section 536.016. Agencies would face new procedural obligations for rule justification, online publication, and approval, and rules that do not comply with the new process could be invalidated.
Sentiment
The available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to appeal to lawmakers seeking tighter control over agency rulemaking and greater transparency, while likely drawing concern from agencies and stakeholders that rely on administrative flexibility. The absence of discussion or vote data limits any stronger conclusion about overall sentiment.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s expansion of legislative and executive control over agency rulemaking and the practical burden it places on agencies. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s limits on agency authority, cost review requirements, and public posting rules, while opponents may argue that requiring gubernatorial approval, legislative concurrent resolutions for high-cost rules, and invalidating noncompliant rules could slow or block needed regulations. The $250,000 threshold and the exception for federal-law or federal-funding-related rules are likely to be especially important in debates over scope and enforceability.