The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Michigan House Bill 4039 requires state agencies to eliminate two existing rules for every new rule proposed
Last action · October 28, 2025: REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRSSponsors: Pat Outman and 15 others
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
State agencies proposing new administrative rules must identify and rescind at least two existing rules for each new rule introduced under House Bill 4039. The Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules is prohibited from approving any rule-making request that fails to meet this two-for-one elimination requirement. The measure also mandates electronic filing of rule-making requests and weekly reporting to legislative committees.
State departments and regulatory bodies face a mandatory contraction of their existing administrative code when pursuing any new regulatory action, altering the administrative compliance burden across state government.
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
State agencies
State agencies must rescind at least two existing administrative rules for every new rule they propose and satisfy electronic filing requirements.
Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules
The office must verify compliance with the two-for-one rule elimination requirement before approving any rule-making request and issue weekly reports to legislative committees.
Key Facts
- Agencies proposing a new rule must provide a list of existing rules to be rescinded, requiring at least two existing rules removed for each new rule.
- The Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules cannot approve any request for rule-making that fails to comply with the two-for-one rescission requirement.
- Agencies must electronically file a request for rule-making with the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules before initiating any rule changes.
- Requests for rule-making must include statutory basis, the problem addressed, significance assessment, decision records, and the list of rules to be rescinded.
Show all 5 facts
- The Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules must provide weekly electronic listings of all approved and denied requests for rule-making to legislative committees.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must an agency do when proposing a new rule?
Who reviews and approves requests for rule-making?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently passed both. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Law.
Procedural history
13 actions- Oct 28, 2025SenateCommitteeREFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS
- Oct 28, 2025SenateFloorPASSED BY HOUSE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
- Oct 23, 2025Housetransmitted
- Oct 23, 2025HouseFloorpassed; given immediate effect Roll Call #268 Yeas 59 Nays 46 Excused 0 Not Voting 5
- Oct 23, 2025HouseFloorread a third time
- Sep 24, 2025Houseplaced on third reading
Show 7 earlier actions
- Sep 24, 2025HouseFloorread a second time
- Sep 18, 2025Housereferred to second reading
- Sep 18, 2025HouseCommitteereported with recommendation without amendment
- Jan 30, 2025Housebill electronically reproduced 01/29/2025
- Jan 29, 2025HouseCommitteereferred to Committee on Rules
- Jan 29, 2025HouseIntroducedread a first time
- Jan 29, 2025HouseIntroducedintroduced by Representative Rep. Pat Outman
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Show 11 more sponsors
Connected Entities
Sources
legislature.mi.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance65How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy40Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz25Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools