Summary#
HB 1024 is an introduced bill that would amend Ohio laws on the Common Sense Initiative Office, administrative rules, regulatory limits, and occupational regulation. It would place the office in the legislative branch and give it a role in reviewing certain rules and actions by occupational boards. The bill says its goal is to reduce business impacts and regulatory restrictions; that is a stated goal, not a guaranteed result.
- The Senate president and House speaker would organize the office and jointly appoint its director. The director would appoint staff, who would serve at the pleasure of those legislative leaders. The office would not be an independent corporation.
- The office would have to review certain actions by occupational boards and commissions for consistency with state policy and possible anticompetitive conduct. In some cases, the board would have to pause the action while the office reviews it; the office could approve it or make it void by disapproving it.
- State agencies would have to assess how proposed rules affect businesses, send draft rules and analyses to the office, consider its recommendations, and explain in writing when they do not adopt suggested changes.
- The office would have to set up ways for people to comment on business impacts of draft and existing rules, including by phone and online. It would forward comments to the agency but would have no other duty to act on them.
- The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review could allow an agency to adopt a rule despite limits on regulatory restrictions if the agency shows cause. The bill also changes parts of the process for reviewing and potentially invalidating rules.
What it means for you#
- Businesses: A rule that requires a licence or permit, imposes a penalty, requires spending or reporting, or is likely to reduce revenue or increase expenses would count as having an adverse business impact. Agencies would have to assess that impact and consider ways to reduce it. The bill does not give businesses a right to have a rule changed.
- People who comment on rules: You could submit comments through the office’s website, by mail or in person, or by toll-free phone. The office must pass comments to the agency; the bill does not require the agency to adopt them.
- Occupational boards and regulated professions: Covered board actions that may affect competition could be referred to the office. While a covered action is under review, the board must pause it until the office approves it and sends its written explanation. Some licence denials and disciplinary actions are excluded from review, subject to an exception for actions referred by a person granted a court stay.
- People bringing antitrust lawsuits: For certain lawsuits against a board, a person would have to use the bill’s review process first. A court must grant a stay of a qualifying lawsuit brought by someone other than the attorney general or specified prosecutors, until the office completes its review.
- Occupational regulation: The bill states a policy favoring competition and the least restrictive regulation needed to address substantiated consumer harms. It does not, in the supplied text, directly repeal particular licences or create a new licensing process.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires legislative leaders to provide the office with staff resources, space, furnishings, and equipment, but gives no cost or staffing estimate.
- No appropriation, tax change, fee change, or fine change is specified in the supplied text.
What is unclear#
- The parent laws are not supplied, so the current law and the full extent of each change cannot be verified against them.
- The supplied bill text ends partway through the occupational-regulation provisions. The complete changes to those provisions are not available here.
- The bill does not explain how the office would decide whether state policy is a pretext for anticompetitive conduct, or how it would handle cases with competing interpretations.
- It does not set out a detailed process, deadlines, or appeal route for the office’s review of board actions.
- The supplied text does not show when the changes would take effect. The bill is introduced and is not law.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that agencies should examine costs and burdens before adopting rules, and explain why they keep rules that affect businesses.
- Giving the office power to require removal of certain regulatory restrictions could make its review more consequential than advice alone.
- Review of some occupational-board actions could provide a check where board members belong to the profession affected by their decisions.
- Allowing exceptions to regulatory limits when an agency shows cause could give lawmakers a way to weigh a proposed rule against the overall restriction limit.
Case against#
- The office’s director and staff would serve at the pleasure of legislative leaders, and the office could make covered board actions void. The bill does not provide detailed review procedures or an appeal route in the supplied text.
- Requiring boards to pause actions during review could delay decisions. The bill does not specify how long the office may take to decide.
- A focus on reducing business impacts and regulatory restrictions could conflict with other rule goals; the bill does not specify how those competing goals should be weighed.
- The bill assigns staffing and resource duties without estimating their cost, and it does not clarify how its review process would fit with other existing programs.