Further providing for definitions, for proposed regulations and procedures for review and for final-form regulations and final-omitted regulations and procedures for review; providing for regulations deemed withdrawn; further providing for procedures for subsequent review of disapproved final-form or final-omitted regulations; providing for concurrent resolution required for economically significant regulations; further providing for existing regulations; and providing for State agency regulatory compliance officers and for Office of Government Efficiency.
SB810 would substantially revise Pennsylvania’s Regulatory Review Act by tightening legislative oversight of agency rulemaking and creating new structures for regulatory review and efficiency. The bill adds a definition of “economically significant regulation” as one with annual costs exceeding $1 million and requires agencies to provide more detailed legal authority and cost estimates when submitting proposed regulations. Those cost estimates would be prepared by the Independent Fiscal Office, and committees would be required to hold a public hearing on proposed economically significant regulations during the public comment period.
The bill also changes the review process for final-form and final-omitted regulations. It extends and adjusts committee review timelines, allows committee disapproval or further review to delay commission action, and creates a mechanism under which certain regulations can be deemed withdrawn if the agency lacks explicit statutory authority or fails to meet new filing requirements. For economically significant regulations, SB810 requires a concurrent resolution of the General Assembly before a regulation may take effect, adding a legislative approval step on top of existing commission review. It also expands procedures for repealing existing regulations through concurrent resolution and limits agencies from reissuing substantially similar regulations after legislative rejection unless later authorized by statute.
Beyond rulemaking review, SB810 requires each state agency to designate a regulatory compliance officer. That officer would be responsible for helping educate regulated parties, improving communication, providing written compliance opinions, and developing waiver guidelines for fines or penalties when violations are self-reported before enforcement. Agencies would also have to submit annual reports to the General Assembly on compliance efforts and the communities they serve. In addition, the bill creates a nonpartisan Office of Government Efficiency within the Independent Regulatory Review Commission to review existing statutes and regulations for burdensome, duplicative, or inefficient provisions, accept public suggestions and waste reports through a website, track recommendations, and issue annual reports to the Governor and General Assembly. The office would be temporary and would sunset after five years.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-oversight, pro-reform, and pro-efficiency, with an emphasis on reducing regulatory burden and increasing legislative control over agency action. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to measure support or opposition, but the structure of the bill suggests it is intended to appeal to lawmakers concerned about regulatory costs, agency accountability, and economic impacts on businesses and the private sector.
The main points of contention likely involve the bill’s expansion of legislative power over executive-branch rulemaking, especially the requirement that economically significant regulations receive concurrent resolution approval before taking effect. Agencies and supporters of administrative flexibility may object that the bill could slow or block needed regulations, increase procedural complexity, and make it harder to respond to policy needs. By contrast, supporters are likely to argue that the bill improves transparency, ensures stronger statutory authority, and protects regulated entities from costly or unclear rules.
SB810 would amend the Regulatory Review Act to impose new procedural requirements on Pennsylvania agencies, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, and legislative committees. It would change how proposed and final regulations are reviewed, add a withdrawal mechanism for regulations lacking explicit statutory authority, require legislative approval for economically significant regulations, and create new duties for agencies through regulatory compliance officers. It would also establish a new Office of Government Efficiency within the Independent Regulatory Review Commission to review existing laws and regulations and recommend revisions or repeals.
No committee discussion or vote data were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be driven by a reform-oriented, anti-bureaucratic sentiment focused on reducing regulatory burden, increasing transparency, and giving the General Assembly a larger role in approving major regulations. The bill’s design suggests support from lawmakers skeptical of agency rulemaking and likely resistance from those who favor executive agency discretion.
The most significant contention is the bill’s shift of power from agencies and the regulatory commission toward the General Assembly, especially the requirement that economically significant regulations obtain a concurrent resolution before taking effect. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s new “deemed withdrawn” rule, which could invalidate regulations for technical or authority-based defects. Agencies may also object to the added workload and potential enforcement complications created by regulatory compliance officers, mandatory public hearings, and expanded reporting. Supporters, however, would likely argue these provisions improve accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and prevent overregulation.