SB 961 amends West Virginia’s rule-making policy statute to require executive agencies, when they publicly propose a new rule, to make a good-faith effort to identify at least two existing rules that could be considered for repeal. The bill ties this requirement to the Legislature’s existing rule-repeal process, signaling a “one-in, two-out” style approach to regulatory management, though the text stops short of mandating automatic repeal.
The bill also removes obsolete reporting requirements from the statute. Specifically, it deletes provisions that required agencies to submit reports in 2017 and 2020 regarding rules that were more stringent than federal counterparts and rules that should be continued, modified, or repealed. The remaining operative change is the new expectation that agencies pair new regulatory proposals with potential repeal candidates.
Impact
If enacted, SB 961 would affect executive agencies with rule-making authority by adding a procedural obligation during the rule-development process and by cleaning outdated deadlines from the code. It would not itself repeal any rules, but it would influence how agencies prepare new regulations and how they identify existing rules for possible legislative repeal under West Virginia’s rule-making review framework. The bill would amend §29A-3-20 of the West Virginia Code and interact with the Legislature’s rule-repeal provisions in §29A-3-1a and §29A-3A-2a.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive of regulatory review and streamlining. The measure is framed as an administrative reform aimed at reducing regulatory accumulation and updating outdated statutory reporting language rather than expanding agency authority. No opposition or support was documented in the supplied transcripts or voting history.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the practical burden and policy effect of requiring agencies to identify two existing rules for possible repeal whenever they propose a new rule. Supporters would likely view this as a restraint on regulatory growth and a way to encourage deregulation or offset new burdens with old-rule removals. Critics could argue that the requirement is vague, may be difficult to apply consistently, and could pressure agencies to nominate rules for repeal without a clear substantive basis. Another possible issue is that the bill preserves agency discretion by using a “good faith effort” standard, which may be seen as too weak by proponents of stronger regulatory rollback.