Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HCSR5

Caption

Requests a study of whether a regulatory agency should provide a regulated person or business with notification of a deficiency and an opportunity to correct the deficiency prior to a finding of a violation

Impact

Should HCSR5 be enacted, it would provide a more lenient approach to regulatory enforcement in Louisiana, focusing on compliance assistance rather than punishment. By allowing businesses an opportunity to rectify deficiencies before being penalized, the intent is to foster a more collaborative relationship between regulators and businesses. This could potentially lead to an overall improvement in compliance rates and less adversarial interactions when deficiencies are identified.

Summary

HCSR5 is a House Concurrent Study Request proposed by Representative Ellington, which aims to examine whether regulatory agencies in Louisiana should be mandated to notify regulated individuals or businesses of deficiencies, allowing them a chance to correct these issues prior to a formal finding of a violation. This study is to be conducted by a joint committee from the House and Senate committees on governmental affairs, with findings to be reported before the 2011 Regular Session of the Legislature convenes. The bill reflects an ongoing effort to ensure that the enforcement of regulations is fair and offers a pathway for compliance rather than immediate punitive measures.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding HCSR5 is generally supportive among those who advocate for regulatory reform and increased cooperation between businesses and regulators. Proponents argue that notifying businesses of shortcomings encourages better compliance and decreases the likelihood of severe penalties for minor infractions. However, there may be concerns about whether such measures would lead to leniency that undermines the effectiveness of regulations designed to safeguard public interests.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HCSR5 include debates on the balance between necessary regulation and undue burden on businesses. Critics may argue that providing warnings prior to violations could lead to complacency among regulated entities, thus failing to uphold critical safety and environmental standards. Additionally, further discussions may arise about which agencies would be subject to such notification requirements and how the determination of 'deficiencies' would be standardized across different sectors.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

MI HB4870

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; funds donated to a candidate for recall efforts; require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.

MI HB4326

Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; provision related to officeholders raising funds when facing a recall; modify, and require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.

CA SB602

Advisory bodies.

CA SB1048

Advisory bodies.

CA AB3239

Advisory bodies.

KS HR6003

Providing temporary rules of the House of Representatives for the 2023 session until permanent rules are adopted.

MN HC1

A house concurrent resolution relating to the regent nomination joint committee.

AZ HB2443

Campaign finance; contributions limits