BILL NUMBER:S4819

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the state administrative procedure act, in relation to
streamlining regulatory analysis documents

PURPOSE:
This bill allows the combination of certain portions of regulatory
analysis documents to avoid repetition and reduce paperwork, while
still requiring an agency to fully identify the adverse impacts of a
rule and consider approaches to minimize costs and burdens.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
The bill makes changes to the provisions of the State Administrative
Procedure Act (SAPA) concerning various statements documenting the
impact of proposed regulations:

* §202-a requires, for most proposed rules, the preparation of a
'regulatory impact statement" (RIS) detailing the agency's authority
and the need for the rule, and disclosing the fiscal and economic
impact of the rule, and any new paperwork requirements or mandates.

* §202-b requires, for any rule that would impose any compliance or
paperwork requirements or would otherwise have an adverse impact on
small businesses or local governments, the preparation of a
              

'regulatory flexibility analysis" (RFA) detailing the outreach
efforts undertaken by the agency to foster input by small businesses
and/or local governments, the cost and paperwork impacts of the rule,
and the measures the agency considered to make the rule more flexible
in recognition of the differing compliance capabilities of small
businesses and/or local governments (such as use of performance
standards, exemptions from the rule, or less frequent reporting
schedules).

* §202-bb requires, for any rule that would impose any compliance or
paperwork requirements or would otherwise have an adverse impact on
public or private
entities in rural areas, the preparation of a 'rural area flexibility
analysis" (RAFA) detailing in a manner similar to the RFA the
agency's efforts to provide flexibility in the rule in recognition of
the different nature of rural areas of the State.

* §201-a requires, for any rule that would have an adverse impact on
jobs or employment opportunities, the preparation of a 'job impact
statement" (RIS) detailing the alternatives considered by the agency
to minimize the rule's impact on jobs.

Bill §§ 1, 3 & 5 amend the JIS, RFA and RAFA sections to clarify that a
separate form is not needed when an agency determines that the rule
would not have any adverse impact that would trigger the preparation
of an analysis or statement. Instead, the agency may include
information within the RIS explaining how the agency determined that
there would be no such adverse impact or compliance requirements.


Bill §2 clarifies the RIS section to provide that in addition to being
exempt from the requirement to prepare an RIS, a genuine technical
amendment with no substantive impact is exempt from the requirements
to prepare an RFA, RAFA and JIS provided the rulemaking notice
includes a disclaimer that no such document is applicable.

Bill §§4 & 6 amend the RFA and RAFA sections to provide that, when
proposing a rule involving compliance or paperwork requirements but
no adverse impact on small businesses, local governments, and/or
rural entities, information on such requirements may be summarized in
the RFA or RAFA instead of duplicated from the RIS.

EXISTING LAW:
Currently SAPA requires the preparation of an RFA or RAFA for any
rulemaking that entails compliance of paperwork requirements on small
businesses, local governments or rural entities, even if there would
be no adverse impact. Also, it is not clear that an agency may
include a statement that a rule would have no impact in the RIS, or
may dispense with certain required statements when proposing a
non-substantive technical amendment.

JUSTIFICATION:
SAPA requires agencies to analyze the impact of their proposed rules
on the public as a whole, and also to perform more targeted analyses
to ensure that the proposals do not unthinkingly impose
disproportionate costs and burdens on specific types of entities. For
example, in recognition of the burden of regulatory provisions may
fall quite differently on a small business than on a multinational
corporation, SAPA requires agencies to consider "flexing" proposed
rules to facilitate small business implementation. Similar analyses
are required to recognize the different ways that rules can impact
local governments and entities in rural areas, and to minimize the
impact of proposals on jobs and employment opportunities.

Some agencies complain that SAPA requires the preparation of
duplicative documents. In many cases, such duplication reflects mere
pro forma compliance with SAPA in lieu of performing indepth
analysis of regulatory options. However, two aspects of the SAPA
process can be
improved to minimize duplication while preserving needed analytical
elements. First, when a proposal clearly does not impose any adverse
impacts, there is no need to prepare a separate statement to that
effect. Instead, the inclusion of succinct information in the RIS
should be sufficient. The bill clarifies SAPA in this regard.

Second, the law provides that, even if there are no adverse impacts, an
RFA and/or RAFA is still required if the rule would impose
paperwork or compliance requirements on small businesses, local
governments and/or rural entities. For example, a proposed rule may
require small businesses to meet performance standards instead of
requiring specific process controls, or require submission of two new
reports in place of five old ones. In such cases, although costs and
burdens would be eased, the agency still must analyze the new
requirements (appropriately so, since the changes may fail to
minimize burdens, or may unintentionally create new ones).
This bill would provide agencies the option of summarizing information


on the new requirements in the RFA and/or RAFA and referring to the
RIS or other document that addresses the requirements more fully.

The bill also clarifies that a non-substantive technical amendment
which is exempt from the requirement to prepare an RIS is also exempt
from the requirement to prepare the other regulatory analyses.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill - similar legislation was introduced as an Article VI bill in
2010 (A.9714/S.6614) but was not enacted.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
State agencies that use the provisions of this bill will experience
some savings in time and workloads by summarizing otherwise
repetitive information in regulatory documents and by eliminating
unnecessary notices for proposed rules that only represent technical
amendments.

LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
State agencies that use the provisions of this bill will experience
some savings in time and workloads by summarizing otherwise
repetitive information in regulatory documents and by eliminating
unnecessary notices for proposed rules that only represent technical
amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
First day of October after having become a law - applicable to all
rule making notices initially prepared on or after such date