BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 12 Hearing Date: 7/14/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooley |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/22/2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Arthur Terzakis |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: State government: administrative regulations: review
DIGEST: This bill requires each state agency, on or before
January 1, 2018, to review, adopt, amend or repeal any
applicable regulations that are duplicative, overlapping,
inconsistent, or out of date and revise those identified
regulations, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides a process, known as the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations
by state agencies charged with the implementation of statutes,
and for legal review of those regulatory actions by the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL). (Government Code Section 11340
et seq.)
2)Directs OAL, at the request of any standing, select, or joint
committee of the Legislature, to initiate a priority review of
any regulation that the committee believes does not meet the
standards of (a) necessity, (b) authority, (c) clarity, (d)
reference, and (e) nonduplication. (Government Code Section
11349.7)
3)Specifies that if OAL is notified of, or on its own becomes
aware of, an existing regulation for which the statutory
authority has been repealed or becomes ineffective, then the
AB 12 (Cooley) Page 2 of ?
OAL shall order the agency to show cause why the regulation
should not be repealed, and shall notify the Legislature in
writing of this order. (Government Code Section 11349.8)
4)Authorizes an agency that is considering adopting, amending,
or repealing a regulation to consult with interested persons
before initiating any regulatory action. (Government Code
Section 11346)
This bill:
1)Requires state agencies, on or before January 1, 2018, to
adopt, amend or repeal, using procedures provided in current
law, those regulations identified as duplicative, overlapping,
inconsistent or out of date.
2)Requires state agencies to hold at least one public hearing,
notice that hearing on the Internet and accept public comment
on proposed revisions.
3)Requires state agencies to notify the appropriate policy and
fiscal committees of the Legislature of the proposed revisions
to regulations, and then to report to the Governor and the
Legislature the number and content of the regulations
identified as duplicative, overlapping, inconsistent, or out
of date and actions to address those regulations.
4)Requires specified agencies to identify any existing
regulations of a department, board, or other unit within that
agency that may be duplicative, overlapping or inconsistent
with regulations of other departments, boards or units within
that agency.
5)Contains various legislative findings that the APA does not
require agencies to individually review their regulations to
identify overlapping, inconsistent, duplicative, or
out-of-date regulations that may exist. Also, finds and
declares that it is important that state agencies
systematically undertake to identify, publicly review, and
eliminate overlapping, inconsistent, duplicative, or
out-of-date regulations, both to ensure they more efficiently
implement and enforce laws and to reduce unnecessary and
outdated rules and regulations.
6)Contains a January 1, 2019 sunset provision.
AB 12 (Cooley) Page 3 of ?
Background
Purpose of AB 12. The author's office notes that "numerous
economists and business leaders agree that one of the greatest
obstacles to California job growth is the 'thicket' of
government regulations that constrain business owners." Under
current law, any state agency may review, adopt, amend or repeal
any regulation within its statutory authority at any time. The
OAL reports that as of December 26, 2014, the number of
regulations adopted totaled 67,176. Of those, state agencies
had repealed 14,319, or approximately 21%. With 52,857
regulations still active, the author believes more needs to be
done. This bill requires state agencies to review their
regulatory framework within a two-year timeframe.
The author's office cites an October 2011 report published by
the Milton Marks Little Hoover Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy (Little Hoover Commission)
titled, Better Regulation: Improving California's Rulemaking
Process which contained several recommendations for improving
the state's rulemaking process, including the state establishing
a look-back mechanism to determine if regulations are effective
and still needed.
According to the author's office, this bill is intended to
implement the "look-back mechanism" approach by establishing a
two-year window within which agencies, and the departments,
boards and other units within them, must review all regulations
that pertain to the mission and programs under their statutory
authority. Upon completion of this review, the identified
regulations that are deemed to be duplicative, overlapping,
inconsistent or out of date may be repealed using the existing
processes already provided in the APA. This bill also provides
for public hearings and comments and requires that regulatory
changes be reported to the Legislature and the Governor.
Staff comments. While it is no doubt true that California has
seen a significant increase in the volume and scope of
administrative agency regulations in recent years, it should be
noted that none of those regulations could ever have been
adopted without express, statutory authorization by the
Legislature.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 12 (Cooley) Page 4 of ?
AB 797 (Steinorth, 2015) requires OAL to submit to the
appropriate policy committees of each house of the Legislature
for review a copy of each major regulation that it submits to
the Secretary of State. The bill also provides that a
regulation does not become effective if the Legislature passes a
statute to override the regulation. (Held in this committee at
author's request)
SB 981 (Huff, 2014) would have required each state agency to
review each regulation adopted prior to January 1, 2014, and to
develop a report to the Legislature containing prescribed
information. (Held in this Committee)
SB 617 (Calderon, Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011) revised various
provisions of the APA and required each state agency to prepare
a standardized regulatory impact analysis, as specified, with
respect to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a major
regulation, proposed on or after November 1, 2013.
SB 591 (Gaines, 2011) would have enacted the California Smart
Regulation Act and required state agencies to reduce the total
number of regulations they impose by 33 percent. (Held in this
Committee)
SB 553 (Fuller, 2011) would have required that a regulation or
an order of repeal of a regulation that has been identified by
the agency as having, or as being reasonably likely to have, an
adverse economic impact of at least $10 million become effective
180 days after the date it is filed with the Secretary of State,
except as provided. (Held in this Committee)
SB 401 (Fuller, 2011), among other things, would have required
every regulation proposed by an agency after January 1, 2012,
include a provision repealing the regulation in 5 years. (Held
in Senate Environmental Quality Committee)
SB 396 (Huff, 2011) would have required each agency to review
each regulation adopted prior to January 1, 2011, and develop a
report with prescribed information to be submitted to the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2013. (Held in Senate
Environmental Quality Committee)
SB 366 (Calderon, 2011) would have required each state agency to
review its regulations to identify duplicative, overlapping,
AB 12 (Cooley) Page 5 of ?
inconsistent or outdated provisions and repeal or amend
identified regulations. Also, would have created a Streamlined
Permit Review Team charged with improving the efficiency of the
state permitting process for development projects. (Held in
this Committee)
AB 429 (Knight, 2011) would have required an agency, for any
regulation that it has identified as having a gross cost of
$15million or more, an increased cost of 5% or more over the
cost of an existing regulation, or both, to submit a copy of the
rulemaking record for that regulation to the appropriate policy
committee in each house of the Legislature when the agency
submits the regulation to OAL for approval. (Held in Assembly
policy committee)
SB 942 (Dutton, 2010) would have established an Economic
Analysis Unit within OAL and would have required agencies to
make publicly available and submit to the unit specified cost
estimates related to a proposed regulation and specified
information used to develop the cost estimates. (Held in Senate
Appropriations Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT:
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Association of Bed & Breakfast Inns
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Grocers Association
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Taxpayers Association
Commercial Real Estate Development Association
AB 12 (Cooley) Page 6 of ?
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Family Business Association
Industrial Environmental Association
International Council of Shopping Centers
National Federation of Independent Business/California
Small Business California
USANA Health Services, Inc.
Western States Petroleum Association
OPPOSITION:
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Proponents state that "AB 12 simply
directs agencies to look at their regulations and ask the basic
questions of necessity, contradiction and complication. We
believe that the answers to these regulations will provide
greater balance to the laws and regulations and open the door
for modernization as the California economy changes with the
advent of new industries and technologies." Proponents also
contend that reducing regulatory overlaps, contradictions, and
complications would diminish the cost of compliance for
California businesses without lowering environmental, health,
and safety standards.