Committee hears bill to create regulatory "sandbox" and new Regulatory Relief Division in attorney general's office

House Bill 2291 would establish a Regulatory Relief Division in the office of the attorney general to administer a general regulatory "sandbox," a temporary testing framework that could waive some certification or registration requirements so businesses can pilot new products or services without immediately meeting all statutory or administrative requirements.

Steph, a staff member who presented the bill, said, "House bill 2,291 would establish a regulatory relief division within the office of the attorney general to administer and support the general regulatory sandbox program." She described a director appointed by the attorney general, a small initial staff limit of one full-time and one part-time employee unless the legislature appropriates more, and an 11-member advisory committee to advise on applications.

The bill would allow participants to demonstrate innovative offerings for a limited period while maintaining certain consumer protections. "The program would allow businesses to demonstrate innovative offerings without obtaining the otherwise required certification or registration required by state law," Steph said. She added that the bill explicitly would not permit waivers of federal or state licensing requirements, or waivers of taxes administered under "chapter 79," and would prohibit waivers related to alcoholic beverages.

Proponents said sandboxes give regulators real-world trials to inform future rule changes. Tanner Temple, deputy state director for Americans for Prosperity, described the model and emphasized consumer-safety limits: "This bill is a growing compromise that allows innovation but maintains consumer health and safety ... this does not mean sandbox or a free for all. So that means health and safety ... they would be excluded from those." Reese Empey, senior director of state government affairs at the Libertas Institute, described how sandboxes are used to test services under close supervision and produce legislative or agency reforms based on trial outcomes.

Representatives from other states described their experience. Dane Ishihara of the Utah Office of Regulatory Relief said Utah places its sandbox work in an economic development office to encourage businesses to come forward; he offered a concrete example: "One of our first applications was related to towing dispatch ... similar to a Lyft or Uber for towing dispatch," where the sandbox helped identify statutory changes the legislature later made.

Committee members asked about the scope and limits of the bill, including whether the sandbox could affect proposed new regulations and how the bill differentiates licenses from certifications or registrations. Steph explained the bill would let the division review existing statutes and recommend changes to the governor and legislature but would not override laws: the division could "make recommendations to the agencies concerning those regulations, but it wouldn't have any sort of role in overriding potential regulations." The bill's language treats certifications and registrations differently from licenses; because statutory terms vary, staff said the practical scope will depend on how requirements are named in law.

Key procedural features described in testimony and the bill text include: an advisory committee of 11 members to review applications and recommend approvals; an application fee not to exceed $250; a requirement that applicable agencies produce written reports within 30 days of a complete application describing potential consumer harm and a recommendation on admission; an agency's failure to report would be treated as no objection; agencies could reject applications for federal noncompliance or substantial risk or cost; the advisory committee could override an agency denial only by a two-thirds vote; sandbox participants would operate under temporary waivers for 12 to 24 months (with a possible extension of up to 12 months); participants must disclose certain risks to consumers and report incidents of consumer harm to the Regulatory Relief Office, applicable agencies, and the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations; and the director must submit annual reports to legislative committees on program participants and recommendations for legal changes.

Committee members also questioned placement of the division in the attorney general's office rather than in a commerce or economic development agency. Dane Ishihara and other witnesses said states differ: Utah houses its office in the governor's economic office to link to business outreach, while Arizona and Kentucky placed universal sandboxes in the attorney general's office citing consumer-protection priorities and administrative considerations.

No formal committee action or vote on HB 2291 was recorded during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing and noted additional bills and possible actions at the next meeting.

Looking ahead, proponents said the sandbox model can be industry-specific or universal; witnesses noted several states operate sandboxes (for example, Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah) and that pilots commonly yield targeted statutory changes after trials.

Ending: The hearing produced a mix of technical questions and policy discussion but no formal vote. Committee members requested additional clarification on licensing versus certification distinctions, staffing and fiscal notes, and the legal mechanics for agency reports and advisory-committee overrides. The committee scheduled additional hearings and possible final actions on other bills at its next meeting.