ballotpedia.org

Indiana REINS-style state law

From Ballotpedia

Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Nondelegation
Judicial deference
Executive control
Procedural rights
Agency dynamics

Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia


The Indiana REINS-style state law (Senate Bill 4) is a REINS-style state law signed by Governor Eric Holcomb (R) on March 13, 2024, that requires review of rules with implementation and compliance costs of $1 million or more over a two-year period by the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee consists of four state legislators and the state budget director and is established within the Indiana State Budget Agency "to serve as liaison between the legislative and executive, including the administrative branches of government, and to provide information to the general assembly with respect to the management of state fiscal affairs so that it may have a better insight into the budgetary and appropriation needs of the various state agencies."[1][2][3]

REINS-style state laws refer to state laws in the spirit of the federal Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. These laws often require legislative approval of proposed state agency rules that carry associated costs in excess of a certain monetary threshold, however, the Indiana bill instead requires review of rules by the state Budget Committee.

Indiana Senate Bill 4 includes the following provisions:[1]

The statement required under this subsection must include a reference to any data, studies, or analyses relied upon by the agency in determining that the imposition of the requirement or cost is necessary.

(e) Except as provided in subsection (f), if the implementation and compliance costs of a proposed rule are expected to exceed the threshold set forth in subsection (c)(6), the publisher may not publish the proposed rule until the budget committee has reviewed the rule.[4]

Background

See also: Rulemaking, REINS Act

The federal REINS Act, which provisions of the Indiana state law were modeled on, was initially designed by Tea Party activist Lloyd Rogers in 2009. Rogers contacted former U.S. Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) to propose legislation requiring that "all rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local government financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective." The proposal was incorporated into the Republican Party's Pledge to America legislative agenda leading up to the 2010 election cycle and was later introduced as legislation. It has since been introduced in the 112th Congress (2011-2013) through the 118th Congress (2023-2025).[5][6]

Legislative history

The bill was introduced into the Indiana State Senate on January 16, 2024, by State Senators Chris Garten (R), Ryan Mishler (R), and Travis Holdman (R) as Senate Bill (SB) 4. After passing the state senate on January 23, 2024, the bill passed the state house on February 27, 2024, with amendments. The amendments were rejected by the state senate and the bill was referred to a conference committee for further consideration. The final version of the bill was approved by the state house and the state senate on March 11, 2024, and signed into law by the governor on March 13, 2024.[1]

Below is an abbreviated timeline of the legislative history of the Indiana REINS-style state law:[1]

  • January 16, 2024: SB 4 was introduced to the Indiana State Senate by State Senators Chris Garten (R), Ryan Mishler (R), and Travis Holdman (R) and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
  • January 18, 2024: The committee released a report recommending passage of SB 4 as amended by the committee.
  • January 23, 2024: The bill passed the Indiana State Senate as amended with a vote of 48-0.
  • February 6, 2024: The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
  • February 22, 2024: The committee released a report recommending passage of SB 4 as amended by the committee.
  • February 27, 2024: The bill passed the Indiana House of Representatives with a vote of 95-0.
  • February 29, 2024: The Indiana State Senate dissented from the Indiana House of Representatives' amendments and the state senate and state house appointed conferees.
  • March 8, 2024:The Indiana State Senate and Indiana House of Representatives voted 46-0 and 68-25, respectively, to adopt the conference committee's report.
  • March 11, 2024: The bill was signed by the senate president pro tempore and the speaker of the house.
  • March 12, 2024: The bill was signed by the president of the senate.
  • March 13, 2024: The bill was signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb (R).

Provisions

The sections below contain a series of quotes explaining the major provisions of the law related to the adoption of administrative rules, according to a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Indiana Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis.[7]

Rulemaking process

The following section outlines amendments related to the rulemaking process:[7]

Rulemaking Process: The bill makes technical corrections to various statutes concerning rulemaking. It requires agencies to submit a copy of the notice of the first public comment period and regulatory analysis to the small business ombudsman. It provides that the legislative notice required for rule readoptions must be submitted not later than January 1 of the year preceding the year in which the rule expires. The bill provides that the publisher of the Indiana Register shall assign a document control number when an agency submits the legislative notice during rule readoption instead of when the agency submits the notice of proposed readoption.

Interim Rule for Fee Reduction: The bill provides that an agency may adopt interim rules to implement a reduction, a full or partial waiver, or an elimination of a fee, fine, or civil penalty included in an administrative rule.

Licensure Rules: The bill specifies certain deadlines within the statutes governing an agency's failure to enact required licensure rules.[4]

Review of rules over a certain monetary threshold

The following section outlines requirements for review by the Budget Committee of proposed rules with estimated implementation and compliance costs of $1 million or more:[7]

The bill requires an agency to conduct a regulatory analysis for certain proposed rules, including if the implementation and compliance costs are at least $1 M. It provides that if a proposed rule has implementation and compliance costs of at least $1 M, the following: (1) The rule cannot be published in the Indiana Register until the Budget Committee has reviewed the rule. (2) The SBA and the Office of Management and Budget may not approve any part of the proposed rule prior to review of the proposed rule by the Budget Committee. It provides that for a provisional rule or an interim rule that has implementation and compliance costs of at least $1 M, the Governor may not approve a rule prior to the Budget Committee's review of the rule. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to notify the Legislative Council of certain proposed rules that have a fiscal impact of over $1 M over the course of two years.[4]

See also

External links

Footnotes

v  e

The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Reporting
Laws

Administrative Procedure ActAntiquities ActCivil Service Reform ActClayton Antitrust ActCommunications Act of 1934Congressional Review ActElectronic Freedom of Information ActFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938Federal Housekeeping StatuteFederal Reserve ActFederal Trade Commission Act of 1914Freedom of Information ActGovernment in the Sunshine ActIndependent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952Information Quality ActInterstate Commerce ActNational Labor Relations ActPaperwork Reduction ActPendleton ActPrivacy Act of 1974Regulatory Flexibility ActREINS ActREINS Act (Wisconsin)Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Sherman Antitrust ActSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ActTruth in Regulating ActUnfunded Mandates Reform Act

Cases

Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerA.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesAssociation of Data Processing Service Organizations v. CampAuer v. RobbinsChevron v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilCitizens to Preserve Overton Park v. VolpeFederal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaField v. ClarkFood and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco CorporationHumphrey's Executor v. United StatesImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. ChadhaJ.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United StatesLucia v. SECMarshall v. Barlow'sMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection AgencyMistretta v. United StatesNational Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. SebeliusNational Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning CompanyNational Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery CorporationSkidmore v. Swift & Co.United States v. LopezUnited States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilWayman v. SouthardWeyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceWhitman v. American Trucking AssociationsWickard v. FilburnWiener v. United States

Terms

Adjudication (administrative state)Administrative judgeAdministrative lawAdministrative law judgeAdministrative stateArbitrary-or-capricious testAuer deferenceBarrier to entryBootleggers and BaptistsChevron deference (doctrine)Civil servantCivil serviceCode of Federal RegulationsCodify (administrative state)Comment periodCompliance costsCongressional RecordCoordination (administrative state)Deference (administrative state)Direct and indirect costs (administrative state)Enabling statuteEx parte communication (administrative state)Executive agencyFederal lawFederal RegisterFederalismFinal ruleFormal rulemakingFormalism (law)Functionalism (law)Guidance (administrative state)Hybrid rulemakingIncorporation by referenceIndependent federal agencyInformal rulemakingJoint resolution of disapproval (administrative state)Major ruleNegotiated rulemakingNondelegation doctrineOIRA prompt letterOrganic statutePragmatism (law)Precautionary principlePromulgateProposed rulePublication rulemakingRegulatory budgetRegulatory captureRegulatory dark matterRegulatory impact analysisRegulatory policy officerRegulatory reform officerRegulatory reviewRent seekingRetrospective regulatory reviewRisk assessment (administrative state)RulemakingSeparation of powersSignificant regulatory actionSkidmore deferenceStatutory authoritySubstantive law and procedural lawSue and settleSunset provisionUnified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsUnited States CodeUnited States Statutes at Large

Bibliography

Agencies

v  e

Ballotpedia
About
Editorial Content

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-ChiefKen Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology StrategyNorm Leahy, Senior EditorDaniel Anderson, Managing EditorRyan Byrne, Managing EditorCory Eucalitto, Managing EditorMandy Gillip, Managing EditorDoug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project ManagerJaclyn BeranMarielle BrickerJoseph BrusgardEmma BurlingameKelly CoyleThomas EllisFrank FestaNicole FisherBrianna HoseaJoseph GreaneyThomas GrobbenJaime Healy-PlotkinTyler KingGlorie MartinezNathan MaxwellEllie MikusJackie MitchellEllen MorrisseyMackenzie MurphyKaley PlatekSamantha PostAdam PowellEthan RiceSpencer RichardsonVictoria RoseBriana RyanMyj SaintylMaddy SaluckaMaddie Sinclair JohnsonAbbey SmithJanie ValentineJoel WilliamsSamuel WonacottTrenton WoodcoxMercedes Yanora