Clarify the Interim Rules Review Committee's oversight of emergency rulemaking.
Summary
SB 210 revises South Dakota’s administrative rulemaking statutes to give the Interim Rules Review Committee a more direct and time-sensitive role in emergency rulemaking. The bill requires an emergency rule to be reviewed at an emergency teleconference meeting of the committee within 72 hours after the agency has met the existing emergency-rule requirements. The committee must determine whether the agency followed the emergency procedure, whether the rule is necessary, and whether the process is being used for a prohibited purpose. An emergency rule would not become effective unless the committee declares the rulemaking process complete.
The bill also updates related rulemaking procedures to fit that new oversight structure. It expressly authorizes teleconference hearings and final action for administrative rules, adjusts timing language for when emergency rulemaking may begin after a bill is signed, shortens the director’s review window for emergency rules, and changes the completion/effectiveness timeline for emergency rules from three days to one day after compliance with the emergency-rule requirements and committee review. It also reinforces limits on emergency rule use, including a prohibition on using the process merely to avoid missed deadlines and a bar on substantially similar emergency rules after committee rejection absent new authorization or changed circumstances.
Impact
SB 210 would amend several provisions in chapter 1-26 governing South Dakota administrative rules, including §§ 1-25-1.5, 1-26-4.4, 1-26-5, 1-26-6, 1-26-6.5, and 1-26-6.7, and add a new section to chapter 1-26. Its practical effect is to increase legislative oversight of emergency rules, speed up committee review, and make emergency rule effectiveness contingent on an affirmative committee determination. Agencies would face tighter procedural requirements and shorter review timelines, while the Interim Rules Review Committee would gain a stronger gatekeeping role over emergency regulations affecting the public, state government, and regulated parties.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be framed as a procedural clarification rather than a policy change, with an emphasis on accountability and oversight. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is available. The overall tone of the measure suggests a legislative interest in tightening emergency rulemaking controls and ensuring that agencies use the emergency process only when truly justified.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s shift of authority toward the Interim Rules Review Committee by making emergency rules ineffective unless the committee completes its review and declares the process complete. Agencies may view this as a constraint on their ability to respond quickly to urgent situations, especially because the bill imposes a 72-hour committee meeting requirement and a 48-hour director review window. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s anti-abuse provisions and its requirement that emergency rulemaking be reserved for imminent peril, unforeseen financial loss, or other genuine emergencies, while critics may argue that the added oversight could slow urgent regulatory responses and complicate agency operations.