Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bills to require periodic review of administrative rules; AG cautions on repeal burden
Summary
Senators heard testimony on SB418, a bill to require periodic regulatory ‘‘sunset’’ review. Attorneys and agency representatives told the committee that identifying obsolete rules is needed but repealing or amending rules is time-consuming and costly under existing law (HRS §91-3). The committee deferred decision to the next hearing.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Jan. 28 heard Senate Bill 418, which would establish a regulatory ‘‘sunset’’ review to identify administrative rules that lack current statutory authority.
Supporters, including representatives from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and other organizations, said a statewide review would identify rules tied to statutes that have been repealed or become obsolete. An attorney from the Attorney General’s Office and agency representatives acknowledged the problem but told senators that the legal and procedural steps to amend or repeal rules are resource-intensive.
“Don’t you think there’s a need to do some kind of review to see what rules are being promulgated on things that don't exist?” the committee chair asked, framing the bill as an effort to identify rules without statutory authority.
A Deputy Attorney General responded that agencies already run their rules past the AG’s office but that “the procedure, the steps that need to be taken to amend or repeal is very complicated.” The deputy added that the substantive repeal procedure is codified “under 91‑3” and that the process takes “a lot of effort and a lot of money.”
Senators and witnesses discussed two recurring themes: (1) agencies can probably identify candidate rules for repeal but lack the funding and staff to carry out the formal repeal process, and (2) the existing statutory process under HRS §91‑3 may limit the ability to streamline repeal without legislative change. As one committee member put it, other states have undertaken similar reviews and “moved the ball forward,” but state officials described practical barriers to immediately sweeping repeal.
Committee staff and witnesses discussed the possibility of drafting amendments to clarify the bill’s scope and to create a process that balances agency capacity with the goal of removing obsolete rules. No formal vote was taken; consistent with committee practice announced at the start of the hearing, senators deferred decision making on measures heard that day to the committee’s next meeting.
The committee recorded the discussion for the hearing record and will consider amendments and next steps at its decision-making session scheduled for Jan. 30, 2025.
