Subcommittee Hears Wide-Ranging Testimony on Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act

A legislative subcommittee heard more than two hours of testimony on H 3021 and its companion S 254 — the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act — with witnesses sharply divided over whether the bills would rein in overreach and help small businesses or create regulatory gaps that threaten public health, the environment and critical infrastructure.

Supporters, including small-business owners and the state director of Americans for Prosperity, said the bills would restore elected oversight and reduce unnecessary burdens. Matt Humm of Americans for Prosperity said the measure “brings citizens back into the process of rulemaking and policymaking,” and praised a REINS provision that would require legislative authorization for regulations costing $1,000,000 or more.

Opponents warned the bill’s mechanics could do more harm than good. Megan Dedolph, president of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, said the legislation’s sunset and reauthorization approach risks eliminating important protections if the General Assembly does not reauthorize delegations on time. “The intent behind this legislation is sound,” Dedolph said, “but our concern is with the mechanisms that this bill uses to achieve it.” Emily Poole, an attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, urged the subcommittee “not to support H 3021 and S 254 in their current form,” citing existing five‑year review requirements and warning of unintended consequences.

Witnesses and committee staff highlighted three recurring, concrete risks: workload and capacity, legal and federal interdependencies, and financial cost. Commerce manager Sonia Barkley told senators that the department provides administrative support with two staffers for a Small Business Regulatory Review Committee that should have 11 volunteer members but currently has vacancies; she warned that reviewing the statute’s scope — described in testimony as roughly 80,000 "do's and don'ts" or about 5,500 regulations depending on how the count is made — “may be a heavy lift.” Poole cited a statement of estimated fiscal impact that found nearly $5,500,000 in recurring expenses associated with implementing H 3021.

Industry stakeholders argued certain fields need explicit treatment. John Cameron, executive director of the Charleston Harbor Pilots, asked for an approach that keeps pilotage rules governed under Title 54, warning that “lapses and uncertainties can void delegations given in Title 46 of the U.S. Code and revert jurisdiction over navigation to the federal government.” Cameron and several senators discussed whether narrowly crafted carve‑outs or parallel language in Title 54 could protect port safety without undermining the bill’s aims.

Lawmakers also debated technical provisions. Supporters said the bill would harden legislative review and remove deference to agency interpretations in court; opponents said existing statutory review processes can be strengthened without the bill’s broad sunsets. Several senators asked whether the 2‑for‑1 requirement for removing regulations could be gamed; witnesses and advocates said the requirement is intended to produce review and transparency rather than automatic deletions.

The subcommittee recorded testimony from business owners who said regulatory complexity imposes real costs. Dawn Pierce, a Lexington County entrepreneur, said the bill would reduce burden for startups; Gail Nichols, owner of Red Bug Barn, described multiple, overlapping licensing requirements in her trade. Committee chair and members probed witnesses about concrete examples and whether the current statutory framework could be enforced more aggressively instead of rewriting it.

No formal votes on H 3021 or S 254 were taken during the hearing. After closing remarks from the chair of the Small Business Regulatory Review Committee and Commerce staff about implementation challenges, the panel adjourned.