Fiscal Note - SB 0386 - Revises Authority of the Committee on Administrative Rules
L.R. NO. 1550-08
BILL NO. HCS for SS for SCS for SB's 386 and 372
SUBJECT: Administrative Rules: General Assembly
TYPE: Original
DATE: May 6, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the following agencies indicated that the proposal or similar
proposals would have uncertain fiscal impact on their agencies: Department of
Public Safety-Director's Office, Department of Revenue, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Higher Education, Department of Insurance,
Department of Health, Department of Mental Health, Department of
Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of
Conservation, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Department of
Social Services, Office of Administration, and Department of Corrections.
Several agencies noted that the proposal would: 1) redefine expenses which
could be ordered reimbursed to plaintiffs who prevailed in cases involving
administrative rules, and 2) remove the court's and agencies' authority to
refuse to order reimbursement of expenses when the court or agency finds the
state's position was substantially justified or that special circumstances
make an award unjust.
Oversight assumes that state agencies would write procedural and emergency
rules in conformity with provisions of the proposal so that court awards to
plaintiffs for reasonable expenses in bringing suits against rules could be
absorbed within current budgets.
Oversight also assumes that executive branch agencies and the legislature
will agree on the provisions of the "Act Relating to the Implementation of
Law Existing Prior to the Effective Date of This Legislation" in a fashion
timely enough so that normal governmental operations would continue.
Officials of the following agencies stated the proposal or similar proposals
would have no direct effect: Office of the Governor, Missouri House of
Representatives, Missouri Senate, Office of State Courts Administrator,
Gaming Commission, and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Officials of the Secretary of State's Division of Administrative Rules note
that parts of the proposal increase the number of pages that would be
published and parts could decrease the number of pages that would be
published. They note that there would be a change in the format of the Code
of State Regulations. Oversight assumes that if the cost of publishing rules
increased, the Secretary of State's office could either change charges for
the Code to reflect costs of publication of laws and comments from the Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules or request monies through decision items.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
0 0 0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
0 0 0
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected due to this
proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would rescind rule making authority for state agencies except
for procedural and emergency rules. Existing rules would not be affected by
this proposal.
The proposal would add a finding that a rule would be "necessary to preserve
a compelling governmental interest" to the list of findings which would
justify issuing of an emergency rule.
The General Assembly would propose "an act relating to the implementation of
law existing prior to the effective date of this legislation" each year. The
bill would contain subject matter to implement the provisions of existing
law. The bill would not be printed in the Revised Statutes of the State of
Missouri, but would be published in full in the Secretary of State's Code of
State Regulations. (This section would take effect twenty calendar days after
recission of executive order 97-97.)
The proposal would also:
1) require agencies to file procedural and emergency rules with the Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules;
2) allow the Committee to make comments on proposed rules;
3) require those comments to be published in the Code if the agency did not
amend the proposed rule;
4) allow the Committee to refer comments concerning proposed rules to the
House Budget Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee;
5) allow court proceedings against agency rules and put the burden of proof
on the agency to prove challenged rules procedural and not substantive;
6) allow courts to invalidate any rule found to be substantive though the
agency promulgating the rule claimed it to be procedural;
7) define "reasonable fees and expenses" which could be awarded successful
plaintiffs in rules cases; and
8) allow agencies to seek public input on proposed rules.
This proposal contains an emergency clause.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program, would not require additional capital improvements or rental space,
and would not affect total state revenue.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Administration
Department of Agriculture
Department of Conservation
Department of Corrections
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Coordinating Board for Higher Education
Department of Health
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Transportation
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety
Department of Revenue
Department of Social Services
State Courts Administrator
House of Representatives
Senate
Governor
Secretary of State
Gaming Commission
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.