Supporters urge lawmakers to adopt Ohio REINS Act to require legislative approval of high‑cost rules

Witnesses from advocacy groups and a national legal foundation testified in favor of House Bill 11, the Ohio REINS Act, at the House Government Oversight Committee hearing. Supporters said the bill is intended to restore legislative authority over economically significant administrative rules by requiring affirmative legislative approval for rules that exceed preset fiscal thresholds.

Under the version presented, a proposed agency rule would trigger full legislative approval if it exceeded $100,000 in agency costs, $100,000 in compliance costs, or $1 million in economic impact over the biennium. Witnesses described the bill as a way for elected lawmakers to review major regulatory decisions and said several other states have enacted similar measures.

Testimony and key points

Hannah Cubbins, legislative director for Americans for Prosperity Ohio, said the REINS approach "requires legislative approval for the most economically significant rules" and argued the measure would restore accountability to elected officials. Jamie Kavanaugh of Pacific Legal Foundation said the bill would better align rulemaking with the constitutional separation of powers and noted other states (Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Wyoming) have enacted or are considering similar laws. Emma Gerlick of FGA Action said the measure would protect prior regulatory reform gains and provide a front‑end check on high‑cost regulations.

Committee questions and issues raised

Members asked whether the bill contains an emergency carve-out for public-health or disaster situations; witnesses said the bill would preserve emergency-rule authority and that temporary emergency rules generally expire by statute unless the legislature acts. Representative Stevens asked for data on how many rules would have triggered the thresholds in prior years; the witness said a request to LSC identified about 83 rules over a recent two‑year period that would have met the threshold, but that the bill is not retroactive.

Members also raised concerns about locally specific regulatory impacts (for example, EPA-mandated sewer upgrades) and whether REINS can address project-specific burdens on small communities; witnesses said the REINS process applies to statewide rules that meet the thresholds and that other statutory or legislative remedies might be needed for localized mandates.

Next steps and outcome

Witnesses said REINS-type laws tend to reduce the number of high-cost rules and encourage agencies to draft narrower regulations. No committee vote occurred at the hearing; supporters asked the committee to continue work on the bill and to consult with LSC on state-specific impacts.

Ending

Supporters described the measure as a legislative tool to increase oversight and to keep major economic decisions in the hands of elected representatives. Committee members asked for follow-up data from LSC and examples of state practice before further action.