Committee Hears Testimony on H3021, Small Businesses Urge Regulatory Sunset and Protections for Niche Industries

A judiciary committee hearing on H3021, the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act, drew small-business owners, trade representatives and policy experts who urged lawmakers to approve a framework for periodic review and legislative oversight of rules that carry major economic impacts.

Proponents said the bill would restore accountability by requiring legislative approval for regulations with substantial economic effects and create a regular review cycle to remove obsolete or duplicative rules. "It says that when regulations carry major economic impact, elected lawmakers, not unelected agencies, should be the ones to approve them," Robin Peterson of York County told the committee.

Small-business owners described daily burdens they say stem from accumulated regulation. "We respectfully ask that you support the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act as it is written," Gail Nichols, who identified herself as the owner of Red Bug Barn in Richburg, said in public comment, citing multiple separate licenses she said apply to related trades (plants, eggs, chicks) and arguing that redundant paperwork disadvantages mom‑and‑pop operations.

Tim Frost, a senior fellow at the Cicero Institute who worked on regulatory-review reforms in Idaho, told senators that his state's initial "spring cleaning" review removed what he described as 20–25% of clearly obsolete rules and that Idaho reduced total rulemaking by about 40% over seven years. "In the last 7 years we've reduced total rulemaking by 40%," Frost said in testimony; he also credited off‑ramps for emergency rules and federal‑compliance provisions in avoiding regulatory gaps.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several technical and safety questions. A senator from Charleston asked who would bear liability if a lapsed safety regulation led to injury or death; Frost said courts and market actors often determine liability and that the bill preserves emergency-rule authority and legislative mechanisms for extensions. The chair cited the bill's fiscal-impact statement, saying implementation was estimated at $6,791,000 total with $6,369,000 recurring according to agency responses.

Not all testimony was uniformly supportive on technical grounds. John Cameron, executive director of the Charleston Harbor Pilots, asked lawmakers to craft a specific exemption for pilotage, arguing the pilots operate under a unique federal‑state delegation and that lapses could "void the delegation given in title 46 and revert jurisdiction of the federal government." Multiple speakers representing contractors, restaurants and other small businesses described how agency interpretation and administrative process can compound compliance burdens.

Senators also questioned the choice of a 25% reduction goal included in the bill. Frost said the figure is a goal similar to targets used in other states and executive actions and that it grew out of practical experience with initial reviews; he cited Mercatus Center data as one comparative source for scale. He also cautioned that Idaho's economic growth involved many factors beyond regulatory reform.

The hearing did not include a committee vote on H3021. After final questions and comments, a motion to adjourn was made and the committee moved to close the session.

What happens next: The committee has received testimony and technical questions on H3021 and did not record a final vote in the transcript. Further committee sessions or scheduling decisions were not recorded in the provided transcript.