Provide additional legislative oversight of rulemaking.
Impact
The implementation of SB 133 will modify how state agencies develop and adopt rules. It mandates the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis for proposed major rules, which are categorized based on the anticipated compliance costs exceeding $3 million over two years. By establishing these requirements, the legislation seeks to protect the interests of citizens and businesses affected by state regulations while fostering a more participatory rulemaking environment. This could potentially change the speed and complexity of the rulemaking process, as agencies will need to adhere to more rigorous guidelines before proposing new rules.
Summary
Senate Bill 133 is designed to enhance legislative oversight over rulemaking procedures by state agencies. It amends several sections of the South Dakota codified laws to provide additional scrutiny and processes for the adoption of administrative rules, especially major rules that have significant financial implications. The bill aims to ensure that proposed rules are assessed for their economic impact and that stakeholders have ample opportunity to engage in the rulemaking process, thereby promoting government transparency and accountability.
Sentiment
The sentiment around SB 133 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that increased legislative oversight is necessary to curb bureaucratic overreach and ensure that regulatory measures are economically justified. They posit that this will lead to more balanced and fair governance. On the opposing side, critics express concerns about the potential for bureaucratic delays and the stifling of necessary regulatory action that could arise from enforced oversight. This tension reflects a broader debate regarding the balance between oversight and efficiency in government operations.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding SB 133 revolve around the definition and implications of a 'major rule.' The increased scrutiny applied to rules labeled as significant could lead to factions within the state agencies concerned about their operational efficiency. Additionally, the bill's requirement for a thorough regulatory impact analysis may lead to disputes over what constitutes adequate justification for new regulations, particularly in time-sensitive areas that impact public health and safety. This could also complicate the legislative process itself, as it introduces more steps that may slow down how quickly new rules are implemented.
Require legislative approval of real property leases that are necessary for the operation of state government and exceed specified durations or rental payments.