Change the Administrative Procedure Act to require agencies to allow for public comment and submissions on proposed rules and regulations and change permissible venue for civil actions challenging rules and regulations
Summary
LB664 would amend Nebraska’s Administrative Procedure Act to expand public participation in agency rulemaking and to change where legal challenges to agency rules may be filed. Before an agency publishes notice of a proposed rule or regulation, the bill encourages the agency to solicit public comments by newspaper notice stating when, where, and how comments may be submitted. When considering a proposed rule, the agency would be required to allow any person to submit comments, written materials, or other documentation in support of or opposition to the proposal, and those submissions could be made electronically or by mail without requiring the person to travel to a specific location.
The bill also would revise the venue rules for declaratory judgment actions challenging the validity of agency rules or regulations. A petitioner could file in the county of residence, the county of principal business, Lancaster County, or the county where the agency headquarters is located. The court could declare a rule invalid if it violates the constitution, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, or was adopted without complying with required procedures, while excluding procedures under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act from that procedural review standard. The bill would repeal the original sections being amended and would take effect immediately as an emergency measure.
Impact
LB664 would change state administrative law by imposing more explicit public-comment opportunities in agency rulemaking and by broadening the practical access points for challenging agency regulations in court. It would affect state agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, members of the public who wish to participate in rulemaking, and litigants seeking declaratory relief against agency rules. The bill would also clarify that venue cannot be restricted contrary to the new provisions and would preserve the special procedural framework for negotiated rulemaking.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate or factional support in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears designed to increase transparency, public access, and judicial review of agency rulemaking, which are typically framed as government-accountability reforms. Its indefinite postponement suggests the proposal did not advance, but the provided materials do not explain why.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s expansion of public-comment obligations for agencies and its broader venue options for lawsuits challenging regulations. Agencies may view the added notice and submission requirements as burdensome, while supporters would likely argue they improve participation and reduce barriers for affected persons. Another possible point of dispute is the shift in venue, which could make it easier for challengers to sue in more convenient counties and could be seen by agencies as increasing litigation exposure. The bill also draws a procedural line by excluding Negotiated Rulemaking Act procedures from the invalidity standard, which may matter to agencies and stakeholders that use negotiated rulemaking.