Opinion letter to the Honorable Richard M. Webster

JOHN C. OANFORTI-1 ATTORNE:Y OENP.RA.L OFFICES OJ• TUE ATT«:ll.RNEY GENEJRAL OF }).ff1I®®OUIDDl JEFltERSOX CITY March 19, 1976 OPINION LETTER NO . 1 Honorable Richard M. Webster Missouri Senate , District 32 Room 434, Capitol Building Jefferson City , Missouri 65101 Dear Senator Webst.er : This is in answer to your opinion request concerning Sec- tion 226.530, RSMo , which concerns rules and regulations of the State Highway Commission applicable to outdoor advertising. Such section provides in part as follows : ;; . . Such commission rules and regulations shall be filed in the office of secretary of state of the state of Missouri . Such rule or regulation , or any amendment thereto shall become interimly effective thirty days after such filing, and shall remain in effect pend- ing amendment , approval or rejection by the general assembly in the next regular or special session ." The language of the section is confusing in that it states that the rule or regulation or any amendment there to shall remain in effect pending " amendment , approval or rejection" by the General Assembly . The concept of a rule's remaining in effect pending " approval" \vould indicate that if approval were not given the rule or regulation \vould expire . The use of the term "rejection" would indicate that if the rule were not rejected it would remain in effect. 'rhe use of the word " amendment" would indicate that the l egislature purports to have the power to change in part a rule promu~gated by the State Highway Con~ission . The legislature can at any time enact a statute which inval- idates a rule promulgated by any agency which is not. promulgated Honorable Richar d M. Webste r under a constitutional provision . The l egi s l ature can in a sense "approve" a rule by enacting the provisions of such r ule into l aw . Further, a rule can be "amende d " by a statute which contains provisions in part contrary to the rule and in such case the statute would prevail over such contrary provisions of the rule . Such action can be taken by the legislature at any time in any session after the promulgation of the rule except that , of course , a statute cannot be enacted at a special ses- sion of the General Assembly unless the subject matter of the statute is within the call of the Governor . It is axiomatic that one General Assembly cannot restrict the action of a suc- ceeding General Assembly, The State ex rel . Walker v . Walke r , 88 Mo . 279 (1885 ) . It is our view that the legislative intent of Section 226 . 530 , in the- premises , is that the action of the General Assembly i n approving, rejecting or ame nding a rule promulgated by the State Highway Commission is that the appro- val , rejection or amendment must be by a s t atute duly enacted with provisions that are the same as the rule , contrary to the rule , or in part contrar y to the rule . Further , we are of the vie;v that a rule promulgated by the State Highway Commission under the authority of Section 226 . 530, cannot be affected by a joint resolution of the General Assembly . This is because under Section 21 o f Article III of the Missouri Conctitution no law c a n be passed except by btll. vvt: ~.;ctluwt , in these premises, conclude that the General Assembly intended to enact permanent substantive legislation by the use of a joint resolution . We conclude that such rules remain effec- tive until the General Assembly passes legislation invalidating them in whole or in part . Very truly tou.r:~ , .c." --;:- /'~ ' ) ( ,_,<.-.-.... 'J~_i~.. ' r...._..,{,.,~-,..., '-·""" JOHN C. DANFORTH Attorney General - 2 - I I I ~ I f