Providing for a legislative review process and criteria when considering bills that propose new or additional occupational regulation, requiring the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations to review such bills and authorizing the joint committee to direct regulatory entities or to contract with a consulting firm to provide a report to the legislature to inform the legislature's consideration of such bill.
If enacted, HB2818 will significantly influence how occupational regulations are implemented in the state. The legislation specifies that no new regulation can be established unless it is determined that the unregulated occupation poses a significant threat to public welfare. Additionally, it focuses on using the least restrictive regulatory method necessary to achieve public protection, which may involve strategies such as bonding, registration, or certification rather than outright licensing. This approach seeks to balance the need for oversight with the goal of not restricting employment opportunities unnecessarily.
House Bill 2818 establishes a structured process for reviewing new or increased occupational regulations in Kansas. The bill mandates that the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations assess proposed measures before they are enacted. This review aims to ensure that any regulatory actions align with the public interest, particularly in protecting the general welfare of residents without imposing unnecessary burdens on their ability to pursue lawful occupations. It emphasizes evidence from regulatory bodies and provides a framework for evaluating the need for new regulations based on criteria such as potential harm to the public and economic impacts.
Notably, the bill intends to streamline the legislative process while increasing scrutiny over proposed regulations, which might lead to contention among various stakeholders. Proponents argue that this bill is critical for ensuring that any regulation introduced is justified by thorough evidence and that it serves the collective interest of public welfare. Opponents, however, could express concerns that the legislative review process could delay necessary regulations or create barriers for professions that genuinely need oversight, thus leading to potential public health or safety risks. The debate surrounding these issues will likely shape the reception and implementation of the bill.