Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding expiration on rulemaking authority.
Summary
House Bill 218 amends the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act by adding a new section to Title 67 that places a time limit on agency rulemaking authority for statutes enacted on or after July 1, 2025. Under the bill, agencies would have 10 years from the passage of a qualifying statute to adopt all necessary rules and regulations to interpret, implement, or enforce that law. After that 10-year window closes, agencies could only adopt new rules tied to the statute if the Legislature later makes a substantive amendment to the statute or enacts a new law that again confers rulemaking authority, and the rulemaking must begin within two years of that legislative change.
The bill also includes an emergency clause, making it effective on July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it would change how long Idaho agencies can rely on open-ended or continuing authority to fill in statutory details through administrative rules, and it would tie future rulemaking more closely to later legislative action.
Impact
The bill would add a new limitation to Idaho Code section 67-5233 within the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act framework, affecting state agencies that issue administrative rules under statutes passed on or after July 1, 2025. It would not directly change substantive policy programs, but it would alter the timing and scope of agency implementation authority, potentially affecting agencies, regulated industries, and members of the public who depend on administrative rules for clarity and enforcement. The measure would also increase legislative control over long-term rulemaking by requiring a later statutory amendment or new grant of authority before agencies can continue issuing new rules after the 10-year period.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears to be procedural and reform-oriented rather than partisan or controversial in the record provided. The bill is sponsored by the House State Affairs Committee, which suggests committee-level support for the concept of limiting stale rulemaking authority. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition to gauge broader sentiment beyond the bill’s purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between legislative oversight and agency flexibility. Supporters would view the bill as a way to prevent agencies from relying indefinitely on old statutory grants of authority and to ensure that rulemaking stays current with legislative intent. Critics could argue that a hard 10-year expiration may make it harder for agencies to update rules for complex or long-lived statutes without repeated legislative action, potentially creating gaps in implementation or enforcement. Because no hearing transcript or vote history is provided, specific opponents or supporters cannot be identified from the available record.