A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 2.2-4001 and 2.2-4002 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Administrative Process Act; regulatory economic analysis required.
HB992 would amend Virginia’s Administrative Process Act to add a formal definition of “regulatory economic analysis” and require executive branch agencies to prepare and post that analysis when issuing regulations or guidance documents. The analysis must identify the problem the agency is trying to solve, compare a reasonable number of alternative approaches, estimate benefits and costs to the extent possible, and assess effects on local governments, families, and small businesses. The bill also directs that regulations and guidance documents be posted on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall with the economic analysis and any other information required by Department of Planning and Budget instructions.
The bill largely leaves the existing APA framework in place but expands the informational requirements surrounding regulatory actions. It would not broadly rewrite agency rulemaking authority; instead, it adds a transparency and cost-analysis layer for executive branch agencies and clarifies the definition section of the APA to support that requirement. The bill also preserves and restates a long list of agency and subject-matter exemptions from APA procedures, while making clear that the new posting requirement applies to executive branch agencies.
The likely policy effect is to increase the amount of economic and public-facing information available during the regulatory process, which could make it easier for legislators, regulated parties, and the public to evaluate proposed rules. Agencies would need to devote additional staff time and analytical resources to prepare the required assessments, especially for regulations and guidance documents with broad economic or local impacts. The bill could therefore slow some regulatory actions, but it is framed as an administrative transparency measure rather than a substantive policy change.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from floor or committee remarks. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Committee on General Laws suggest it was still in the early review stage when the available record ended. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of regulatory accountability and cost-benefit review, while potentially drawing concern from agencies and stakeholders worried about added procedural burden and implementation costs.
HB992 would amend §§ 2.2-4001 and 2.2-4002 of the Code of Virginia, adding a statutory definition of “regulatory economic analysis” and requiring executive branch agencies to post regulations and guidance documents on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall with that analysis. It would affect the Administrative Process Act by imposing a new analytical and disclosure requirement for agency rulemaking and guidance issuance, while leaving most existing exemptions intact. Agencies would need to evaluate alternatives, quantify costs and benefits where possible, and consider effects on local governments, families, and small businesses.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available materials. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-transparency, pro-accountability approach to regulation, which may be viewed favorably by reform advocates and regulated interests seeking more economic justification for rules. At the same time, the added analysis requirement could be viewed skeptically by agencies or others concerned about administrative burden and delays.
The main point of contention is likely the new requirement that agencies prepare and publish regulatory economic analyses for regulations and guidance documents. Supporters would likely emphasize better cost-benefit review, transparency, and attention to impacts on families, local governments, and small businesses. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may argue that the requirement adds workload, slows rulemaking, and could be difficult to implement consistently, especially when monetary impacts are hard to measure. The bill also preserves a broad set of APA exemptions, so any debate may focus less on the exemptions themselves and more on whether the new analysis mandate should apply as broadly as written.