Louisiana House Bill HB179

Louisiana 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/24
• Refer: 2/26/24
• Refer: 3/11/24

Caption

Requires agencies to repeal two rules for every new one proposed

Impact

The impact of HB 179 is expected to significantly alter the way state agencies formulate regulations. By requiring the repeal of two existing rules for every new proposed rule, the bill encourages agencies to evaluate and eliminate outdated or redundant regulations. This approach aims to foster a more efficient regulatory environment, potentially leading to clearer policies for both the public and the agencies involved. The bill encourages accountability and may help reduce the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses interacting with state agencies.

Summary

House Bill 179 is a legislative proposal that amends the Administrative Procedure Act to introduce a requirement for state agencies in Louisiana. The bill mandates that whenever an agency proposes a new rule, it must concurrently identify and propose the repeal of two existing rules. This measure aims to streamline the rule adoption process and ensure that regulatory frameworks are kept relevant and manageable by reducing the number of rules in effect concurrently.

Sentiment

General sentiment around HB 179 appears to be cautiously optimistic among those advocating for regulatory reform and efficiency. Supporters argue that the bill will facilitate better governance by promoting a more thoughtful approach to rule-making. Conversely, concerns have been raised by critics who worry that repealing existing rules could lead to gaps in regulatory oversight, particularly in areas essential for public safety and welfare. This tension highlights the ongoing debate between regulatory efficiency and the necessity of comprehensive oversight.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 179 center on the balance between reducing regulatory clutter and ensuring adequate protections for the public. Opponents fear that the mandatory repeal of existing rules may result in unintended consequences, particularly if crucial regulations are discarded in favor of new ones that may not provide the same level of protection or oversight. The discussions indicate a divide between those who prioritize a streamlined government process and those who emphasize the need for a robust regulatory framework to safeguard public interests.