Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves measure requiring fiscal and economic impact statements for agency rules
Summary
The Senate adopted legislation requiring the Legislative Fiscal Office to report when agency rulemaking would impose costs above legislative fiscal notes, and set thresholds and procedures for committee review.
The Louisiana State Senate passed a bill to require additional fiscal and economic-impact review when executive-branch rules impose costs beyond original legislative fiscal estimates.
Senator Reese, sponsor of the measure, described the bill as "model legislation" to add oversight to the Administrative Procedure Act. "When we pass legislation in this chamber, we create a fiscal note," Reese said. He explained agencies often promulgate rules to implement laws and that the Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO) should evaluate whether proposed rules increase costs beyond what the Legislature estimated.
Under the bill and adopted amendments, the LFO must determine whether a proposed rule will result in expenditures or economic impacts above those reflected in the original fiscal note; a material threshold for review was set at $600,000 over three years (amended from $1,000,000 over five years). If the LFO finds a proposed rule meets the threshold, the committee of jurisdiction must be notified and has 60 days to hold a hearing. If the committee declines or does not meet, the rule may proceed accompanied by a written explanation.
Reese said the change aligns the review window with the LFO's standard practice. Senator Reese moved and the Senate adopted amendments that clarified the calculation (excluding fiscal impacts already accounted for in the legislative fiscal note) and reduced the multi-year threshold to $600,000 over three years to match LFO practice.
The Senate adopted the bill on final passage by voice and recorded votes; the final recorded vote was 29 yeas and 0 nays. Sponsors said the law is intended to give the Legislature an extra opportunity to review rulemaking that would increase costs beyond the Legislature's original estimates.
