Interim Admin. Rules Oversight Committee
HB358 creates a new interim legislative committee, the Interim Administrative Rule Oversight Committee, to review executive agency proposed rules during the legislative interim. The committee would be made up of 12 legislators appointed by the majority and minority floor leaders of both chambers, with leadership alternating between the House and Senate and between the two major parties. It must meet at least monthly during the interim and is supported by up to four staff members hired by the Legislative Council Service.
The bill gives the committee authority to review proposed agency rules, staff analyses, and fiscal impacts before public rule hearings, except for emergency rules and periods when the legislature is in session. The committee may make recommendations to agencies, suggest statutory changes to clarify legislative intent, and endorse legislation to amend or repeal rulemaking authority. It also requires legislative staff to distribute notices of proposed rulemaking to the committee and to prepare written analyses addressing the rule’s scope, necessity, fiscal impact, legal implications, and compliance with notice requirements.
HB358 also amends the State Rules Act to strengthen notice-of-rulemaking requirements. Agencies would still have to publish proposed rules at least 30 days before a hearing, but notices must now include a cost estimate and, if implementation is estimated to exceed $1 million, a fiscal impact statement. The bill creates a new fiscal impact statement section specifying that such statements must address impacts on agencies, local governments, businesses, consistency with legislative intent, whether mandates on counties or municipalities are funded, and whether the rule is needed to comply with federal law. The committee may also request fiscal impact statements even for rules estimated below the $1 million threshold.
The bill appropriates $2 million from the general fund to the Legislative Council Service for fiscal year 2026 to staff the committee and cover related startup costs. It takes effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the measure would increase legislative oversight of executive branch rulemaking and add procedural and analytical requirements before rules are finalized.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, its general thrust appears to be stronger legislative control over administrative rulemaking, which may appeal to lawmakers concerned about agency authority and regulatory costs, while potentially drawing concern from executive agencies and stakeholders who may view it as adding delay, workload, and additional procedural hurdles to the rulemaking process.
HB358 would add a new layer of legislative review to executive agency rulemaking and amend the State Rules Act to require more detailed notice and fiscal disclosure for proposed rules. It would affect the Legislative Council Service, executive agencies that promulgate rules, and regulated parties such as businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders who would receive more information about proposed regulatory costs and impacts. The bill also creates a new appropriation of $2 million for committee staffing and related expenses.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s design suggests a generally oversight-oriented, reform-minded approach favoring legislative review of agency rulemaking, but the absence of transcripts means sentiment cannot be measured from debate. The measure appears likely to be viewed positively by those seeking greater transparency and accountability in administrative rules, and more cautiously by those concerned about added process and potential delays.
The main points of contention likely concern separation of powers, administrative burden, and timing. Supporters would likely emphasize legislative oversight, fiscal transparency, and ensuring rules align with statutory intent, while critics may argue that requiring committee review and expanded fiscal impact statements could slow rulemaking, increase costs, and interfere with executive agencies’ ability to respond efficiently. Another likely issue is the $1 million threshold for mandatory fiscal impact statements, which the committee can bypass by request, potentially expanding review beyond the original trigger.