A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 28-32-18 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the amendment of an administrative rule by agreement of the agency and administrative rules committee.
SB 2182 would change North Dakota’s administrative rules review process by allowing an agency and the Legislative Management’s Administrative Rules Committee to agree to amend, repeal, or create a rule after the committee has considered it. Under the bill, if the committee and the agency representative agree that a change is reasonable, the rule change could be made without going through the full standard administrative rulemaking requirements, and the Legislative Council could publish the change as amended, repealed, or created.
The bill also revises the committee’s authority to void rules and the procedures that follow a voiding decision. It keeps the committee’s ability to void rules on specified grounds such as lack of statutory authority, conflict with state law, procedural defects, or arbitrariness, and it preserves notice, agency review, and legislative management review steps. The bill further addresses situations where an agency representative does not appear at the committee meeting, including holdover and voiding consequences for emergency and non-emergency rules.
If enacted, SB 2182 would amend section 28-32-18 of the North Dakota Century Code and alter the balance between agency rulemaking and legislative oversight. It would give agencies and the Administrative Rules Committee a more direct mechanism to resolve rule issues by agreement, potentially speeding corrections to administrative rules while reducing the need for a separate full rulemaking process in some cases. The bill would affect state agencies that adopt administrative rules, the Legislative Management’s Administrative Rules Committee, the Legislative Council, and parties affected by administrative regulations.
The bill failed on February 4, 2025, and no committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge detailed sentiment. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at making the rules process more flexible and efficient while preserving legislative oversight, suggesting a procedural reform rather than a controversial policy change. Its failure indicates it did not secure enough support to advance.
The main point of contention likely concerned whether the bill gave too much flexibility to agencies and the committee to alter rules outside the ordinary administrative rulemaking process, versus whether it appropriately streamlined corrections to rules already under legislative review. Another possible concern is the bill’s treatment of agency nonappearance and the consequences for emergency and non-emergency rules, which could be viewed as either an accountability measure or an overly rigid penalty. Because no transcripts are available, the specific objections and supporters cannot be identified from the record provided.