Periodic Review and Expiration of Existing Rules

In the 2013 legislative session, the General Assembly enacted Session Law 2013-413.  This law established G.S. § 150B-21.3A, “Periodic Review and Expiration of Existing Rules.”  This statute requires the Rules Review Commission (“Commission”) to establish a process and schedule for those covered agencies to ensure compliance with the law. This schedule and process requires agencies to review all of their active rules codified in the NC Administrative Code (“the Code”) every 10 years.  An overview of the process was created to capture the process and Commission progress since the law was signed on August 23, 2013.

An Overview of the Review Process

The new regulatory process requires all covered agencies to review all of their active rules.  While there are some exclusions, this process includes many departments, boards, commissions, and licensing boards.

Agencies [Boards] must classify each rule as:

1)         “Necessary with substantive public interest,” generally meaning the rule is needed but there are known or suspected concerns about it from the public;

2)         “Necessary without substantive public interest,” generally meaning the rule is needed and there is no known concerns from the public; or

3)         “Unnecessary,” meaning the agency determined the rule is obsolete, redundant or otherwise no longer needed.

The Board now invites public comment on the Rules.

Click here to access the Board’s Administrative Rules.

Click here for the Board’s initial classification


Public Comment Period

The Comment Period will be open from September 15, 2017 – December 6, 2017. 

Email Public Comment: [email protected]

Mailed Public Comment: NCSAPPB, Attn: Public Comment, PO Box 10126, Raleigh, NC 27605.

“Public comment” is defined by G.S. 150B-21.3A(a)(5) as a written objection to all or part of a rule.  Additionally, pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A(c)(2), in order for the Rules Review Commission to determine whether the public comment has merit, the public comment must address the specific substance of the rule and address any of the standards of Commission review, as set forth in G.S. 150B-21.9(a).

Based upon a review of the public comments, the Commission will review the submission, and determine whether it agrees with the agency classification. When reviewing the comments to determine if they have merit, the Commission must use the standards of review in G.S. § 150B-21.9, (generally meaning that the language is clear, that it is within the agency’s statutory authority, and that it is necessary to implement law).  The Commission must also determine if the comment addresses the substance of the rule. If the RRC disagrees with the agency’s determination that a rule is “necessary without substantive public interest” or “unnecessary,” the Commission may move the classification of the rule to “necessary with substantive public interest.”  The Commission does not have the authority to declare that a rule is “unnecessary” if the agency has not already classified it as “unnecessary.”