Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate declines to concur on administrative-rules economic-analysis bill after objections to "major rule" definition
Summary
Senators rejected a concurrence on Senate File 127, which would add economic-analysis requirements for administrative rulemaking and reinstate elements such as a "major rule" definition; critics said some definitions were vague and would be difficult for staff to apply.
The Wyoming Senate voted against concurring with House amendments to Senate File 127, a bill establishing economic-analysis requirements for administrative rulemaking, after extended floor debate and objections to language including a definition of "major rule."
Senator Boerner moved concurrence and described four changes the House made, including administrative edits and reinserting a definition of "major rule" for public clarity. He emphasized that the economic analyses required by the bill would be made public and that the legislation did not change the legislature's authority to rescind rules.
Several senators objected to aspects of the reinserted "major rule" definition. Senator Ralphs urged raising a monetary threshold and removing language he described as subjective, particularly a clause that would require an economist to judge whether a rule causes "significant changes in social and cultural relations among citizens, including significant impacts on particular religious, ethnic, racial, or gender populations." He called the language "squishy" and recommended action to clarify or strike that criterion.
Senator Bonar, sponsor of the Senate version, said the House had made administrative edits but suggested removing the more subjective criteria from the definition and replacing them with a firm dollar threshold requiring fewer judgments by staff.
On a roll-call concurrence vote, the Senate recorded 30 no votes and one excused; the Senate therefore failed to concur and the matter will proceed to conference committee. Conference committee members were named to resolve the differences.
Why it matters: The bill would create a formal economic-analysis track for major administrative rules, increase transparency of rule impacts and interact with the existing management audit and legislative review processes. Opponents said the definition as offered was too vague and could impose unclear duties on staff economists.
Next steps: Conference committee members were appointed to reconcile the chambers' positions.
