California Senate Bill SB1312

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 4/13/26
• Refer: 4/13/26

Caption

An act to amend Sections 7612.6 and 7612.7 of, and to add Section Sections 7604 to and 7653.10 to, the Business and Professions Code, and to amend the heading of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8825) of Part 3 of Division 8 of, and to add Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 8830) to Part 3 of Division 8 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to professions and vocations. cemeteries.

Summary

SB 1312 would authorize the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau to create an advisory committee to help it engage consumers and licensees in its regulatory work. The committee is permissive rather than mandatory: the bureau may establish it if it chooses. If created, the committee must include at least one representative from the licensed death care industry, one member of the public, and one representative of local government. The bill is narrow in scope and does not change licensing standards, disciplinary authority, or substantive cemetery and funeral regulations. Instead, it adds a new governance and stakeholder-engagement tool within the Business and Professions Code for the bureau’s oversight of cemeteries, crematories, funeral establishments, embalming, and the storage of human remains. The measure is framed as an administrative support bill for the Cemetery and Funeral Act.

Impact

If enacted, SB 1312 would add Section 7604 to the Business and Professions Code and give the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau explicit authority to form an advisory committee. The practical effect would be to formalize stakeholder input into the bureau’s regulatory activities, with required representation from the death care industry, the public, and local governments. It would not itself impose new fees, create a state appropriation, or directly regulate local programs, but it could influence how the bureau develops and administers rules and enforcement policies.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It received a unanimous 10-0 vote in one committee action and later advanced from committee with a 6-1 vote before being re-referred to Appropriations. That pattern indicates broad support for the concept of an advisory committee, though not necessarily complete consensus on all aspects of the measure. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate strong public controversy.

Contention

The main point of possible contention is not the creation of an advisory committee itself, but the bill’s administrative implications and whether the bureau should be given discretion to establish another stakeholder body. Because the committee is optional, some members may view it as a low-risk way to improve communication, while others may question whether it adds bureaucracy or has fiscal/administrative costs that warrant Appropriations review. The required inclusion of industry, public, and local government representatives appears designed to balance interests and reduce conflict.