Administrative rules; removing expedited rule repeal exception; approval prior to proceeding with rulemaking process; impact statement; requirements. Effective date. Emergency.
Summary
SB 1024 amends Oklahoma’s Administrative Procedures Act to make rulemaking more restrictive and more detailed. Before an agency can move forward with a proposed rule, amendment, or repeal, it must publish notice, allow a comment period, and provide the proposed rule and notice to the Governor and the appropriate cabinet secretary. Under the bill, an agency may not proceed unless it receives express written approval within 30 days from the Governor or cabinet secretary; if no approval is received, the agency cannot continue the rulemaking process. The bill also removes the prior expedited rule repeal exception.
The measure expands what must be included in a rule impact statement. In addition to existing cost, benefit, and economic-impact information, agencies must now include an analysis of alternatives to the rule, estimates of state employee time and other resources needed to develop the rule, and a summary and preliminary comparison of any related federal regulations. The bill also preserves the ability for the Governor to waive certain rule impact statement requirements in limited circumstances and states that a rule will not be invalidated solely because the impact statement is insufficient or inaccurate.
Impact
SB 1024 changes the procedural requirements for adopting, amending, or repealing administrative rules under 75 O.S. 2021, Section 303. It increases executive oversight of agency rulemaking by conditioning further action on written approval from the Governor or cabinet secretary, and it broadens the required contents of rule impact statements. The bill affects state agencies most directly, but also impacts businesses, consumers, political subdivisions, and other regulated parties that participate in notice-and-comment rulemaking or are subject to agency rules.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests generally favorable support for the bill, with passage in both chambers by comfortable margins. The Senate and House both advanced the measure with clear majorities, indicating broad legislative backing for tighter control over agency rulemaking and more detailed impact analysis. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into debate, but the recorded votes suggest the bill was viewed positively overall.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s added executive approval requirement and the increased procedural burden on agencies. Supporters likely favored greater oversight, transparency, and accountability in rulemaking, while opponents may have viewed the approval gate as a constraint on agency independence and a potential delay to needed regulations. The expanded rule impact statement requirements, especially the alternatives analysis, staffing/resource estimates, and federal-regulation comparison, also likely raised concerns about additional administrative workload and possible slowing of the rulemaking process.