Bill S4819-2011

Streamlines regulatory analysis documents

Streamlines regulatory analysis documents.

Details

Actions

  • Jun 21, 2012: COMMITTED TO RULES
  • Jun 11, 2012: ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
  • Jun 6, 2012: 2ND REPORT CAL.
  • Jun 5, 2012: 1ST REPORT CAL.1025
  • Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO COMMERCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SMALL BUSINESS
  • Apr 27, 2011: REFERRED TO COMMERCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SMALL BUSINESS

Votes

VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business - Jun 5, 2012
Ayes (12): Alesi, Fuschillo, Griffo, Johnson, McDonald, Robach, Ritchie, Kennedy, Espaillat, Hassell-Thompson, Parker, Stewart-Cousins

Memo

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


Text

STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ 4819 2011-2012 Regular Sessions IN SENATE April 27, 2011 ___________
Introduced by Sen. CARLUCCI -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Commerce, Economic Devel- opment and Small Business AN ACT to amend the state administrative procedure act, in relation to streamlining regulatory analysis documents THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 201-a of the state administrative procedure act, as added by chapter 189 of the laws of 1996, is amended to read as follows: (a) When it is apparent from the nature and purpose of the rule that it will not have a substantial adverse impact on jobs and employment opportunities, the agency shall include in the [notice of proposed rule making or the notice of emergency adoption a] REGULATORY IMPACT STATE- MENT PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO HUNDRED TWO-A OF THIS ARTICLE, A BRIEF statement that the agency has determined that the rule will not have a substantial adverse impact on jobs and employment opportunities; provided, however, that, where appropriate, such statement shall indi- cate that the agency has determined the rule will have a positive impact on jobs and employment opportunities, or will have no impact on jobs and employment opportunities. Except where it is evident from the subject matter of the rule that the rule could only have a positive impact or no impact on jobs and employment opportunities, the agency shall include in the statement prepared pursuant to this paragraph a summary of the information and methodology underlying its determination. S 2. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 5 of section 202-a of the state administrative procedure act, as amended by chapter 698 of the laws of 1984, is amended to read as follows: (a) An agency may claim an exemption from the requirements of this section AND SECTIONS TWO HUNDRED ONE-A, TWO HUNDRED TWO-B AND TWO HUNDRED TWO-BB OF THIS ARTICLE for a rule that involves only a technical amendment, provided, however, the agency shall state in the notice, prepared pursuant to section two hundred two of this [chapter] ARTICLE, the reason or reasons for claiming such exemption.
S 3. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 3 of section 202-b of the state administrative procedure act, as amended by chapter 611 of the laws of 1996, is amended to read as follows: (a) This section shall not apply to any rule defined in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section one hundred two of this chapter, nor shall it apply to any rule which does not impose an adverse economic impact on small businesses or local governments and which the agency finds would not impose reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on small businesses or local governments. The agency's finding and the reasons upon which the finding was made, including what measures the agency took to ascertain that the rule would not impose such compliance requirements, or adverse economic impact on small businesses or local governments, shall be included in the [rule making notice] REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT as required by section two hundred [two] TWO-A of this [chapter] ARTICLE. S 4. Subdivision 5 of section 202-b of the state administrative proce- dure act, as amended by chapter 17 of the laws of 1984, is amended to read as follows: 5. In complying with the provisions of subdivision two of this section, an agency may: (A) provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a rule or more general descriptive state- ments if quantification is not practicable or reliable; AND (B) IF INFORMATION THAT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (B), (C) OR (D) OF SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION IS CONTAINED IN THE REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT OR ANOTHER DOCUMENT ISSUED FOR THE RULE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTI- CLE, SUMMARIZE SUCH INFORMATION AND REFER TO SUCH DOCUMENT IN LIEU OF DUPLICATING THE INFORMATION IN THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS. S 5. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 4 of section 202-bb of the state administrative procedure act, as added by chapter 171 of the laws of 1994, is amended to read as follows: (a) This section shall not apply to any rule defined in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section one hundred two of this chapter, nor shall it apply to any rule which does not impose an adverse impact on rural areas and which the agency finds would not impose reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on public or private entities in rural areas. The agency's finding and the reasons upon which the finding was made, including what measures the agency took to ascertain that the rule would not impose such compliance requirements or adverse impact, shall be included in the [rule making notice] REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT as required by section two hundred [two] TWO-A of this [chapter] ARTICLE. S 6. Subdivision 6 of section 202-bb of the state administrative procedure act, as added by chapter 171 of the laws of 1994, is amended to read as follows: 6. In complying with the provisions of subdivision three of this section, an agency may: (A) provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a rule or more general descriptive state- ments if quantification is not practicable or reliable; AND (B) IF INFORMATION THAT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (B) OR (C) OF SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION IS CONTAINED IN THE REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT OR ANOTHER DOCUMENT ISSUED FOR THE RULE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTI- CLE, SUMMARIZE SUCH INFORMATION AND REFER TO SUCH DOCUMENT IN LIEU OF DUPLICATING THE INFORMATION IN THE RURAL AREA FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS. S 7. This act shall take effect on the first of October next succeed- ing the date on which it shall have become a law, and shall apply to all rule making notices initially prepared on or after such date.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Discuss!

blog comments powered by Disqus