Moratorium on administrative rules leads to uncertainty

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus
romig Romig

It’s taking some time to see just what the effects of a relatively new executive order will be on state agencies, such as the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and the Hoosiers affected by those agencies’ work. On Jan. 14, one of Gov. Mike Pence’s first actions was to sign Executive Order 13-03 which placed a moratorium on the promulgation of any new administrative rules by Indiana’s agencies. Gov. Pence believes the moratorium will free the Office of Management and Budget from the burden of reviewing new rules and give it more time to examine existing regulations to determine which rules impose unnecessary and burdensome costs on Indiana business owners and, therefore, hinder job creation. As a follow-up to his moratorium, Gov. Pence introduced his “Cut Red Tape” initiative with a new website in July. The website – – solicits suggestions about which regulations should be simplified or eliminated. Hoosiers are asked which regulations they consider “most burdensome.” Their suggestions are sent directly to OMB staff members.

There are certain exceptions to the moratorium, such as rules which the agency had announced an intent to adopt before the moratorium took effect on Jan. 14, as well as rules which:

• are related to job creation;

• repeal existing rules;

• reduce state spending;

• reduce agency waste;

• are emergency rules; or

• those necessary to implement federal or court mandates.

If an agency wishes to promulgate a rule within one of these exceptions, it must notify the OMB that it is promulgating the rule under the exception – and presumably satisfy the OMB that such promulgation is necessary.

In February, a document was circulated to agencies notifying them how to proceed under the moratorium. If an agency believes that it needs to promulgate a rule, and it fits one of the exceptions listed in the moratorium, its head must submit a written request via email to the OMB director including the reasons why the proposed rule fits an exception. The OMB director will review the request and make a written determination of whether an exception applies and if the rulemaking may go forward. If the OMB director determines that an exception does not apply, the rulemaking is officially suspended. The document doesn’t discuss how an agency may proceed if it strongly disagrees with the OMB director’s assessment. Only after the OMB determines an exception applies may the agency file a notice of intent to adopt a rule and proceed under Indiana Code 4-22. It appears the moratorium is actually building an additional layer into the rulemaking process for agencies by making the OMB director a “gatekeeper” to determine whether rules meet the governor’s exceptions necessary for good government. The document does not specify any time limits or deadlines by which the OMB must make a determination.

Even before Gov. Pence signed the moratorium, Indiana legislators had addressed a need to constantly review regulations to ensure that stale, inapplicable rules didn’t remain on the books. Under Indiana law, many administrative rules expire seven years after they take effect. (IC 4-22-2.5-2). Certain rules necessary for federal approval of programs delegated under federal law don’t expire, but must still be readopted after seven years. (IC 4-22-2.5-1.1). A few subcategories of rules are excepted from expiration. (IC 4-22-2.5-1). When rules are readopted, agencies must go through the full rulemaking process. (IC 4-22-2.5-3). The rulemaking process includes a review in which the agency must consider other alternatives that are less “costly” or “intrusive” including whether there is even a continued need for the rule. (IC 4-22-2.5-3.1). The public has an opportunity to comment during this procedure. This “sunsetting” policy where rules must be readopted ensures that agencies are constantly reviewing (at least on a seven-year cycle) whether rules are necessary and what effect these rules might have on small businesses.

Gov. Pence’s moratorium doesn’t address how the OMB’s review of all existing regulations will proceed in light of the statutory sunsetting provisions. Many agencies, such as the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, are required to promulgate rules to maintain their “delegated” status under various federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Since any rules passed by such agencies to comply with federal law fit one of the moratorium’s exceptions – presumably the OMB will approve such promulgation. However, seeking such permission and determination adds additional time to the already lengthy rulemaking process. When these agencies must also readopt rules – and follow the same time-added process – they’re likely facing an additional demand on resources that are already spread thin by reduced budgets.

State Budget Director Chris Atkins stated in June that notices of intent to file new rules had drastically dropped in the first part of 2013, compared to the same time period in 2012.

Although the public has always had an opportunity to comment on proposed rulemaking and readoptions, Gov. Pence has provided an additional opportunity for any regulated entity, such as a business with environmental emissions, to vent its frustrations and to suggest which regulations should be reviewed first by the OMB.

But, eight months after signing the moratorium, it is still unclear what effect the governor’s order will have on simplifying Indiana’s regulatory systems in light of existing statutory safeguards against stale, outdated and burdensome rules. It is also unclear how the OMB will cope with its ordinary job of reviewing pending regulations that are excluded from the moratorium while reviewing the approximately 11,000 pages of existing regulations and how it will juggle the suggestions coming in from the “Cut Red Tape” website. The environmental legal community will be closely watching to see how these uncertainties are clarified.•


Amy Romig is a partner at Indianapolis-based Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, who focuses on environmental law. She can be reached by email at or by calling 317-637-0700. More information about Amy is available at


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues