Adopt the Regulatory Management Act
LB472 would create the Regulatory Management Act and establish a new Office of Regulatory Management under the Governor’s control. The office would be led by a director appointed by the Governor and would be responsible for overseeing a statewide catalog of regulatory requirements, collecting agency reviews of existing rules, publishing biennial reports on regulatory changes, and evaluating the analysis agencies use when proposing new regulations. The bill defines key terms such as “agency,” “regulatory requirement,” “systemic failure or problem,” and “cost of compliance,” and it sets out a framework intended to make rulemaking more transparent, data-driven, and focused on broad systemic issues rather than isolated anecdotal problems.
The bill would affect how Nebraska state agencies develop and justify regulations, but it would not itself authorize the Office of Regulatory Management to approve or reject other agencies’ regulatory actions. Instead, the office would monitor, publish, and assess agency rulemaking practices, including whether agencies use best practices, credible empirical evidence, and clear cost-benefit analysis when identifying problems and proposing new requirements. Agencies would be required to provide reviews and supporting materials on existing and new regulations, and the office would publish those materials in a transparent format.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-regulatory review and pro-transparency, with an emphasis on limiting unnecessary or poorly supported regulation. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or public testimony in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure suggests a reform-minded approach that seeks to impose discipline on agency rulemaking and reduce compliance burdens on citizens and businesses.
The main point of contention likely would be the bill’s centralization of oversight in a governor-appointed office and its potential to add another layer of review to agency rulemaking. Supporters would likely view this as a way to curb overregulation, improve accountability, and ensure agencies justify new rules with evidence and cost analysis. Critics could argue that the bill may constrain agency discretion, create administrative burdens, or politicize regulatory review by placing the office under direct gubernatorial control. The bill was ultimately indefinitely postponed, indicating it did not advance to enactment.
LB472 would have added a new chapter of state law establishing the Regulatory Management Act and creating the Office of Regulatory Management. It would have imposed new procedural duties on Nebraska agencies to inventory, review, and report on existing regulatory requirements and to provide more detailed analyses for proposed regulations, including cost-of-compliance and other quantified or qualitative impacts. The bill would have changed the regulatory process across state government by requiring transparency, periodic reporting, and evidence-based justification for new rules, while leaving final rulemaking authority with the existing agencies.
The bill appears to have been framed as a regulatory reform measure intended to improve accountability, transparency, and efficiency in state government. In the absence of transcripts or vote records, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly, but the bill’s language reflects a clear preference for limiting unnecessary regulation and focusing on systemic rather than anecdotal problems. Its indefinite postponement suggests it did not secure enough support to move forward.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s creation of a governor-controlled oversight office, the added reporting and analysis requirements for agencies, and the standard it sets for identifying when new regulation is justified. Supporters would likely emphasize reduced compliance costs, better rulemaking, and stronger oversight of agency action. Opponents would likely worry about administrative burden, duplication of effort, and the possibility that the office could be used to pressure agencies politically or second-guess their regulatory judgments. The bill also explicitly states that the office may not authorize or reject other agencies’ actions, which may have been intended to address concerns about overreach.