Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to tighten requirements for temporary administrative rules
Summary
The House State Affairs Committee voted to send Senate Bill 10-76, as amended, to general orders after debate about limits on use of temporary rules, cost–benefit review and a 90‑day reuse provision.
The House State Affairs Committee on March 24 voted to send Senate Bill 10-76, as amended, to general orders. The bill, introduced in the committee by Representative Jeff Ehlers, would add explicit reasons and procedural safeguards for issuing temporary administrative rules and require greater documentation of the need for such rules.
Ehlers told the committee the bill lists permissible reasons to use temporary rules — including “an imminent threat, natural disaster, or protection of citizens’ rights” — and would require a separate statement explaining why a temporary rule was necessary. He said the bill would also subject temporary rules to the requirements of section 67.5223, the statute cited in the bill that requires a cost–benefit analysis and economic-impact review for rulemaking.
During discussion, Representative Barbieri pressed the sponsor about language on page 2 that prevents bringing back a substantially similar temporary rule within a set time period; the bill currently identifies 90 days as the threshold. Barbieri asked whether 90 days was necessary, and Ehlers said he viewed the figure as a “ballpark” and was open to amendment to shorten the period if colleagues preferred 30 or 60 days. Ehlers and a supporter, Russ Hendricks of the Idaho Farm Bureau, said the bill preserves an exception for immediate threats to health and safety.
Russ Hendricks testified in support on behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau, calling the bill an “incremental step” to narrow when temporary rules may be used and to preserve negotiated rulemaking as the preferred process. Hendricks noted the bill’s subsection structure (A, B or C) offers multiple pathways depending on the circumstances, and reiterated that imminent-threat scenarios remain separate from the 90‑day provision.
The committee considered a substitute motion to send the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; that substitute motion failed on a voice vote. The original motion to send Senate Bill 10-76 as amended to general orders carried on a voice vote.
If enacted as written, the measure would increase documentation and economic review requirements on agencies issuing temporary rules and create a limited time-based restriction on reissuing substantially similar temporary rules, with exceptions for imminent threats and other specified situations.
The committee moved on to other business after the vote.
