BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1099
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1099
AUTHOR: Wright
AMENDED: As introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 23, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Government
Code §11340 et seq.), establishes rulemaking procedures and
standards for state agencies. State regulations must also
be adopted in compliance with regulations adopted by the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL). The APA, among other
things:
a) Requires every agency to prepare and submit a
specified notice of the proposed action and make certain
information available to the public (e.g., draft
regulation in "plain English"; statement of reasons for
proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a
regulation; the problem the agency intends to address;
benefits anticipated from the regulatory action;
evidence to support a determination that the action will
not have a significant adverse economic impact on
business). (§11346.2). The statement of reasons must
identify each technical, theoretical, and empirical
report upon which the agency relies in proposing the
regulation. (§11346.2(b)(3)). A standardized
regulatory impact analysis is required for a major
regulation proposed on or after January 1, 2013.
(§11346.2(b)(2)).
b) Requires state agencies in proposing to adopt, amend,
or repeal any regulation to assess the potential for
adverse economic impact on California business
SB 1099
Page 2
enterprises and individuals. In assessing the potential
for adverse economic impact, state agencies must meet
certain requirements (e.g., be based on adequate
information concerning the need for, and consequences
of, proposed action; consider industries affected
including the ability to compete with businesses in
other states). State agencies must also assess whether,
and to what extent, regulations will affect certain
matters (e.g., creation or elimination of jobs in the
state, creation of new businesses or elimination of
existing businesses in the state, expansion of
businesses currently doing business in the state;
benefits of the regulation). Additional requirements
are specified for major regulations adopted, amended, or
repealed after November 13, 2013, and for economic
impact analyses of regulations (§11346.3). OAL must
return any regulation to the adopting agency under
certain conditions, including failure to complete the
economic impact assessment or failure to include the
assessment in the rulemaking proceeding. (§11349.1).
c) Requires the notice of proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of a regulation to include certain matters
(e.g., policy statement overview explaining the broad
objectives of the regulation and specific anticipated
benefits; an evaluation of whether the proposed
regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing
state regulations; specified information if there may be
a significant, statewide adverse economic impact;
description of all cost impacts to be incurred by a
private person or business; statement of the results of
the economic impact assessment; a statement of the
results of the economic impact analysis). (§11346.5).
d) Requires OAL to either approve a submitted regulation
and transmit it to the Secretary of State for filing, or
disapprove it, within 30 working days. If OAL fails to
act within 30 days, the regulation is deemed approved
and OAL must transmit it to the Secretary of State.
(§11349.3).
e) Requires a regulation that is required to be filed
SB 1099
Page 3
with the Secretary of State to become effective 30 days
after the date of filing unless: a) otherwise
specifically provided by statute under which the
regulation was adopted, in which case it is effective on
that date; b) a later date is prescribed by the state
agency or is part of the regulation; or c) the agency
makes a written request to OAL demonstrating good cause
for an earlier effective date, in which case OAL may
prescribe an earlier date. (§11343.4).
f) Requires OAL to compile, print, publish the adopted,
amended, or repeal regulations, and to also make this
available on the Internet. (§11344).
2) Provides the California Air Resources Board (ARB) with
primary responsibility for control of mobile source air
pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle
emissions and the specification of vehicular fuel
composition. (Health and Safety Code §39000 et seq. and
§39500 et seq.). When making information available to the
public under the APA relating to studies and reports that
ARB relied upon, ARB must also make information public that
is related to, but not limited to, air emissions, public
health impacts, and economic impacts before the comment
period for any regulation proposed for adoption by the ARB.
(§39601.5).
3) Requires each board, department, and office within the
California Environmental Protection Agency, before adopting
any major regulation, to evaluate alternatives and consider
whether there is a less costly alternative or combination
of alternatives that would be equally effective in
achieving increments of environmental protection in a
manner that ensures full compliance with statutory mandates
within the same amount of time as the proposed regulatory
requirements. Under this provision, "major regulation"
means any regulation that will have an economic impact on
the state's business enterprises in an amount exceeding $10
million. (Public Resources Code §57005).
This bill , under the APA:
SB 1099
Page 4
1) Replaces a requirement that a regulation or order of repeal
filed with the Secretary of State becomes effective 30 days
after the date of filing (§11343.4(a)), with a requirement
that the regulation or order of repeal instead becomes
effective on either of the following:
a) July 1 if the regulation or order of repeal is filed
on December 1 to June 1.
b) January 1 if the regulation or order of repeal is
filed on June 2 to November 30.
2) Requires OAL to also make available on its Internet website
a list of, and a link to the full text of, each regulation
filed with the Secretary of State that is pending
effectiveness (#1 above).
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Every year
businesses face a barrage of new regulations promulgated by
numerous agencies. These regulations go into effect 30
days after being filed with the Secretary of State's
office, and this happens year round. The rules cover a
broad spectrum of issues and sometimes are the direct
result of recently passed legislation. Other times agencies
are addressing issues as they arise under authority granted
in the distant past."
The author notes that "SB 1099 establishes two days annually
on which new regulations can take effect. It allows for the
emergency implantation of new regulations for the
protection of the public welfare. It also requires the
Office of Administrative Law to maintain a current listing
on its website of proposed regulations awaiting
implementation."
The author believes that this bill will "take one step to
making its regulatory environment more business friendly."
2) Regulatory costs . Sponsors of legislation relating to the
Administrative Procedure Act frequently refer to economic
SB 1099
Page 5
impacts of regulations. However, economic analyses by
certain interests have also been reviewed by the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). For example,
Assemblymember DeLeon requested the LAO to analyze the
methodologies, data, and reliability of the findings of two
studies by Varshney and Associates - "Cost of State
Regulations on California Small Business Study" (September
2009) which concluded that the state's regulations of all
types resulted in reduction in the gross state product of
$493 billion, and "Cost of AB 32 on California Small
Business" (June 2009) which concluded that AB 32 will cost
the state's small business $183 billion in lost output each
year. The LAO concluded that "Both of the two studies you
have asked us to review have major problems involving both
data, methodology, and analysis. As a result of these
shortcomings, we believe that their principal findings are
unreliable."
Some legislators have raised concerns about economic analyses
of requirements under the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. ARB released an updated economic
analysis of the scoping plan March 24, 2010. According to
the ARB, the analysis shows fuel expenditures drop by 4.9%
in 2020 with a total cost savings of $3.8 billion in
reduced consumption of gasoline and diesel as a result of
increased investment in energy efficiency and cleaner
fuels, 2 million jobs will be created by 2020 which is
consistent with the business-as-usual case, the economy
will continue to grow at a rate of 2.4% per year, and
divergence from the AB 32 Scoping Plan (i.e., limiting
requirements for oil companies or utilities) increases
costs and shifts these costs to Californians and small
businesses.
According to a September 2010 Public Policy Institute of
California Report titled Business Relocation and Homegrown
Jobs, 1992-2006 by Jed Kolko, "Relying on the most recent
data, this analysis reconfirms that business relocation-the
movement of business establishments from one state to
another-accounts for a very small share of California's
employment fluctuations. In fact, relocation accounts for
a smaller share of job gains and losses in California than
SB 1099
Page 6
in most other states, in part because most California
businesses lie far from the border of neighboring states.
This report expands on our earlier research with a closer
examination of births, deaths, expansions, and contractions
of businesses, assessing in particular how much of these
gains and losses occur among locally headquartered
businesses. Although regional economic development policies
often focus on encouraging businesses headquartered
elsewhere to relocate, open, or expand local operations,
the strong majority of job gains and losses are 'homegrown'
in that they take place in locally headquartered
businesses."
3) Costs of inaction . While some parties may disagree over
various economic studies, delays in acting on certain
matters, such as climate change, can also result in costs.
A recent Climate Action Team (CAT) draft assessment on
climate change provides analyses on climate change impacts
relating to various matters, such as warming trends,
precipitation, sea-level rise, agriculture, forestry, water
resources, and public health.
For example, regarding sea-level rise, the report notes that
"Sea level measured over several decades at California tide
gage stations has risen at a rate of about 17 cm (7 inches)
per century. The sea-level rise projections in the 2008
Impacts Assessment indicate that the rate and total
sea-level rise in future decades may increase substantially
above the recent historical rates. The 2008 estimates
represent a significant departure from those in the 2006
CAT report." According to the report, "By 2050, sea-level
rise could range from 30 to 45 cm (11 to 18 inches) higher
than in 2000, and by 2100, sea-level rise could be 60 to
140 cm (23 to 55 inches) higher than in 2000. As sea level
rises, there will be an increased rate of extreme high
sea-level events, which can occur when high tides coincide
with winter storms and their associated high wind wave and
beach run-up conditions." The draft CAT report notes that
"analysis reveals that $100 billion of property and 475,000
people are located in Bay and open coast areas vulnerable
to inundation in 2099. However, risk is not evenly
distributed among the counties in the San Francisco Bay,
SB 1099
Page 7
with San Mateo and Alameda counties having 40 percent of
assets at risk, the greatest amount in the Bay Area.
Marin, Santa Clara, and San Francisco counties are also
exposed to a high degree of risk; exposure to risk in these
counties is higher than in all other counties along the
Pacific coast, with the exception of Orange County.
Exposure to risk in Sonoma and Napa counties is relatively
modest. While all sectors are vulnerable to the impacts
from sea-level rise, 70 percent of all assets at risk are
residential, followed by the commercial sector with 20
percent. In addition to buildings and their contents, a
wide range of other critical infrastructure, such as roads,
hospitals, schools, emergency facilities, water and
wastewater treatment plants, and others will also be at
increased risk of flooding. Continued development in
vulnerable areas would put additional assets and people at
risk."
4) What about health impacts and costs ? In response to
business concerns over certain regulations, others also
note the effect on California residents and their health
from poor air quality and costs relating to those effects.
According to ARB regarding regulations on heavy-duty
diesel-fueled vehicles for particulate matter (PM)
emissions and nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions, for example,
"The regulation is projected to provide significant diesel
PM and NOx emissions reductions that would have a
substantial positive air quality impact throughout
California. PM emissions are projected to be reduced by
about 13 tons per day in 2014 and 3.5 tons per day in 2023.
NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by about 124
tons per day and 98 tons per day, for 2014 and 2023,
respectively. These reductions are critical towards
meeting federal clean air standards. The regulation would
also reduce diesel PM emissions by the maximum level
achievable from inuse on-road diesel vehicles. Staff
estimates that approximately 9,400 premature deaths
statewide would be avoided by the year 2025 from the
implementation of the regulation, and would provide
associated health benefits of $48 to $69 billion."
ARB also notes that "The cost impact of the regulation is not
SB 1099
Page 8
expected to be significant. While it is expected that most
fleets will pass through these costs to their customers,
this is expected to result in a negligible impact on
consumers, equating to about a few cent increase for a pair
of shoes, less than one one hundredth of a cent increase
per pound of produce, or an increase of from $3 to $10 for
a new car."
According to a recent RAND Corporation report, "Meeting
federal clean air standards would have prevented an
estimated 29,808 hospital admissions and ER visits
throughout California over 2005-2007." The report notes
that Medicare spent $103,600,000 on air pollution-related
hospital care during 2005-2007, Medi-Cal spent $27,299,199,
and private health insurers spent about $55,879,780 on
hospital care. According to the RAND report, "These
results suggest that the stakeholders of public programs
may benefit substantially from meeting federal clean air
standards. Private health insurers and employers (who
contribute to employee health insurance premiums) may also
have sizable stakes in improved air quality."
5) Support and opposition concerns . According to the sponsor
of SB 1099, "Businesses in California are begging for
relief from the entanglement of rules that they must
follow, both at the state level and locally. California is
almost always ranked last as a place to start a business
based on its regulatory environment. This measure will go
a long way toward providing certainty to California's
businesses by allowing them to predict and prepare for new
operating rules being mandated by the government."
Sponsors also note that this bill "will alleviate the
pressure of regulations being enacted at differing times
and will lead to better compliance."
According to the California Nurses Association and the
National Nurses Organizing Committee, "For the past few
years, regulatory reform has been a buzzword and dozens of
bills have attempted to rewrite the regulatory process.
Some even claim it was regulation itself that caused this
economic crisis. On the contrary, it was deregulation - of
the housing markets, financial institutions, corporate
SB 1099
Page 9
accounting - that directly caused the financial collapse
and the national recession. The residents of California
need our agencies to focus on promoting good jobs,
enforcing state labor laws, protecting our air and water,
and preventing workplace injuries. We do not want agency
personnel to have their hands tied by a process that
appears to be aimed at decreasing protections for our
citizenry."
6) Legislature addresses Administrative Procedure Act issues
in 2011 . SB 617 (Calderon and Pavley) Chapter 496,
Statutes of 2011, made several revisions to the
Administrative Procedure Act relating to reasonable
alternatives to regulations, economic impact assessments,
standardized regulatory impact analysis for a major
regulation which must be reviewed by the Department of
Finance, enumeration of anticipated benefits, determination
of more cost effective alternatives, and various other
matters.
7) Outstanding issues . As noted above, the Administrative
Procedure Act, California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, other ARB requirements, and Department of Finance
procedures currently contain numerous requirements relating
to analysis of regulations.
Is it appropriate to delay the operative date of a regulation,
as provided under SB 1099, to allow for review by the
Legislature and others, and thereby enable the Legislature
to restrict an agency's authority to enact a regulation
that assists in implementing legislation approved by the
Legislature? Does SB 1099 simply allow those who
participated in the regulatory process, or had an
opportunity to participate in the regulatory process,
another opportunity to restrict implementation of
legislation?
If the committee believes fixed periods are appropriate for
regulations to become effective (which also extends the
operative dates of those regulations), but are concerned
about regulations becoming effective January 1and July 1 of
each year, the author and sponsor believe that having
SB 1099
Page 10
quarterly fixed dates (i.e., January 1, April 1, July 1,
October 1) is also acceptable.
8) Related bills extending the effective date of regulations .
SB 688 (Wright) of 2011 established an exception to the
effective date of a regulation by prohibiting a regulation
that has a cumulative statewide cost in excess of $10
million from taking effect until the January 1 that is one
year following the date that the regulation is filed with
the Secretary of State. SB 688 failed in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee May 4, 2011 (2-5).
AB 338 (Wagner) extended the effective of a regulation from 30
days to 60 days after the regulation is filed with the
Secretary of State. AB 338 failed passage in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee July 6, 2011 (3-4).
SOURCE : National Federation of Independent Business -
California
SUPPORT : American Chemistry Council, American Council of
Engineering Companies of California, Associated
Builders and Contractors of California,
Associated General Contractors, California
Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California
Association of Bed & Breakfast Inns, California
Association of Health Facilities, California
Chamber of Commerce, California Construction
and Industrial Materials Assoc., California
Grocers Assoc., California Hotel & Lodging
Association, California Independent Grocers
Assoc., California Independent Oil Marketers
Association, California League of Food
Processors, California Manufacturers &
Technology Assoc., California Professional
Assoc. of Specialty Contractors, California
Retailers Assoc., California Small Business
Assoc., Chemistry Industry Council of
California, Coalition for Adequate School
Housing, Coalition of Small and Disabled
Veteran Businesses, Consumer Specialty Products
Assoc., Golden State Builders Exchanges, Small
SB 1099
Page 11
Business California, United Contractors,
Western Growers Association
OPPOSITION : California Board of Accountancy, California
Labor Federation - AFL-CIO, California Nurses
Association, National Nurses Organizing
Committee, Environment California, Sierra Club
California