Senators consider bills to increase legislative oversight of administrative rules

Senate Bill 370 and Senate Bill 483 were the focus of a multi-speaker conversation about increasing legislative oversight of administrative rulemaking during the March 19 Senate committee on Holders hearing.

SB 370 would require the Legislative Policy and Research (LPRO) director to distribute to each interim committee a summary, by Dec. 31 of each even-numbered year, of administrative rules adopted during the previous two years that are relevant to the committee's subject matter. Senator David Brock Smith, sponsor of SB 370, told the committee he introduced the bill to ensure committees see rulemaking that affects statutes and local interests. “All this bill does … is says, if there are administrative rules that are being made … they must come back and report to the committee … to let us know whether or not we need to draft legislation to deal with those issues,” Brock Smith said.

Senator Brock Smith highlighted examples he said show the need for legislative review, including Department of Environmental Quality rulemaking that he said set a carbon price “at over $130 a metric ton” while markets in neighboring states were much lower; he said that, in his view, agency rulemaking can have material economic consequences for Oregonians.

SB 483, introduced as a companion measure, would require the LPRO director to study methods for legislative oversight of administrative rules and to deliver a report with recommendations to interim committees related to general government by Sept. 15, 2026. Brock Smith said SB 483 is the “rules light version” and would allow LPRO to recommend how oversight might work.

Paloma Sparks, vice president and general counsel for Oregon Business and Industry, testified in support of SB 370 and SB 483 and urged greater transparency. “We feel very strongly that we need greater transparency in our rulemaking system,” Sparks said, noting hundreds of rulemaking notices published in recent months and describing the difficulty of getting a consolidated view of rule activity across agencies.

Committee members raised questions about current notice practices. In response, DAS director Barry Leslie and committee staff provided a reading of the existing notification rules: when agency rulemaking results from legislation passed within two years of the notice, lawmaker and committee chairs tied to the enabling measure must be notified; otherwise notice is to be provided to chairs of interim or session committees with subject-matter authority, or, failing that, to presiding officers.

The hearing included discussion about whether members always see final adopted rules, with several senators saying they do not consistently receive notice of final rule language and outcomes. Supporters argued the bills would improve the legislature's ability to track rulemaking, identify conflicts with enacted laws, and decide whether statutory responses are necessary. No committee vote was taken on either bill at the March 19 hearing.