Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to increase legislative oversight of agency rulemaking draws broad agency and business support
Summary
House Bill 592 would reorganize and strengthen Montana's administrative rulemaking process, increase sponsor contact requirements, require a small-business impact analysis for every rule, and give the legislature clearer review authority; agencies and business groups testified in favor while committee members debated triggers and costs.
Representative Courtney Springer, sponsor of House Bill 592, opened by saying the bill “strengthens legislative oversight, improves transparency, and ensures Montana's rule making process works for the people.”
Sarah Swanson, commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, described the bill as a reorganization and strengthening of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) and said agencies working with the sponsor had negotiated the text. “We think that it should be far easier for citizens to engage in administrative rule making,” Swanson said, describing requirements for clearer sponsor contact, public presentations at rule hearings and for all rules to go to a legislative interim committee for review.
Swanson and Chris Dorrington, director of the Department of Transportation, said the measure codifies an expanded role for sponsors, requires a short presentation at rule hearings so members of the public can understand what a rule does before comment, and requires a small-business impact analysis for every administrative rule. The bill also preserves an existing fall-to-session blackout period for rule adoption except under strict emergency criteria.
Supporters included the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity. Kerry Hegreberg of the chamber said the changes “improve those protections for small businesses to be involved and informed as part of the rule making process.” Henry Kriegel of Americans for Prosperity said the bill is a step toward national REINS-style reforms but stops short of automatically triggering legislative votes based on a dollar threshold.
Committee members raised questions about whether to add a dollar threshold to limit bureaucratic review of low-cost rules and about possible additional staff and analytic costs for agencies. Swanson and Dorrington said agencies already employ economists and plan to standardize analytic templates to limit expense; Dorrington called the bill “very practical” and urged the committee to consider it as a clarifying improvement rather than a sweeping overhaul.
Senators pressed for assurance that the bill would not create excessive procedures for low-impact rules; the sponsor said she was open to discussion but preferred not to add a spending floor in this package because the bill was the product of months of negotiation with agencies and stakeholders. The committee did not record a final vote on the bill in the transcript.
