Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding the sunset review of administrative rules.
Summary
House Bill 217 revises Idaho’s Administrative Procedure Act provisions governing the sunset review of administrative rules. Under the bill, each rule chapter in effect on July 1, 2026, would be placed on a staggered legislative review schedule running through June 30, 2034, and then every eight years afterward. The schedule would be set by the office of the administrative rules coordinator and posted publicly on the office’s website and on each rule chapter cover page by January 1, 2026.
Before a rule chapter’s review sunset date, an agency that wants to renew the chapter would have to submit a report to the Legislature explaining what statute or federal regulation the rule implements, whether the rule’s substantive content is still necessary, and, if so, why it remains necessary and what evidence supports its benefits relative to its costs. The agency would also have to state whether the substance should instead be incorporated into Idaho Code rather than remain in administrative rule form. In making that determination, the agency must consider the value of consolidating related requirements in the code, how often the rule has been updated and is expected to change, the cost of publishing and maintaining the rule, and the expected cost of monitoring and enforcing it.
Impact
The bill would change how Idaho reviews and renews administrative rules by creating a structured, recurring sunset process for rule chapters and adding new reporting obligations for agencies seeking renewal. It affects state agencies that promulgate rules, the office of the administrative rules coordinator, and the Legislature’s oversight of administrative regulations. The measure also encourages evaluation of whether regulatory requirements belong in administrative code or should be codified in statute, potentially leading to consolidation of some rule-based requirements into Idaho Code and reducing or eliminating others that are no longer justified.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears procedural and reform-oriented rather than partisan or highly contentious. The bill is framed as an administrative oversight measure aimed at periodic review, transparency, and cost-benefit evaluation of rules. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support levels beyond the bill’s introduction by the House State Affairs Committee.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the added workload and reporting burden on agencies, the possibility that some rules may be challenged or allowed to expire if they cannot justify their continued necessity, and the broader policy question of whether regulatory substance should remain in administrative rules or be moved into statute. Agencies that rely on frequently updated rules may object to the cost and administrative complexity, while supporters are likely to favor the increased legislative control, transparency, and periodic scrutiny of regulations.