HB 4073
Modifies provisions relating to administrative law.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
11%
Oppose
89%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
House Bill 4073 modifies Oregon’s administrative law procedures, primarily focusing on how agencies develop and adopt rules. It requires agencies to consult with advisory committees when creating new rules that could impact businesses or small businesses, and to consider the potential fiscal impact of those rules. The bill also strengthens the process for providing notice to the public about proposed rule changes and ensures agencies adequately explain the need for and potential effects of new regulations.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Cosponsors
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of HB 4073 believe the proposed legislation will enhance transparency and accountability in Oregon's administrative rulemaking system, ensuring regulations are economically responsible and inclusive of regulated businesses. By modernizing this process, agencies can effectively carry out their duties while promoting a more equitable business environment. Proponents argue that this bill will foster trust between regulators and the public, ultimately benefiting the state's economy and citizens.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of House Bill 4073 express concerns that the legislation would add layers of bureaucracy to the rulemaking process, imposing unnecessary costs and slowing down regulatory decisions. They argue that mandatory rule advisory committees would detract from government efficiency and hinder agencies' ability to respond efficiently to emerging issues. Critics also contend that HB 4073 would undermine the effectiveness, fairness, and integrity of Oregon's rulemaking processes by introducing unnecessary burdens, reducing transparency, and giving regulated entities too much influence over state agency rulemakings. Furthermore, opponents point out potential unintended consequences, including increased bureaucratic processes and burdens on education partners, as well as concerns about the bill's lack of inclusivity and its potential impact on marginalized communities.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.