BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  1





       Date of Hearing:  April 29, 2015


          ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY


                                Eduardo Garcia, Chair


       AB 19  
       (Chang) - As Amended April 23, 2015


       SUBJECT:  Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development:   
       small business:  regulations


       SUMMARY:  Requires the Governor's Office of Business and Economic  
       Development (GO-Biz) to review regulations affecting small businesses  
       to determine whether the regulations need to be amended in order to  
       become more effective, less burdensome, or to decrease the cost impact  
       to affected sectors.   Specifically, the bill:


       1)Requires GO-Biz, under the direction of the Small Business Advocate,  
         to review regulations affecting small businesses adopted prior to  
         January 1, 2016.   In undertaking this mandate GO-Biz is required  
         to: 



          a)   Establish a process through which a stakeholder can request  
            priority review of a regulation;



          b)   Review and, where appropriate, recommend a less burdensome or  
            costly implementation method;
           








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  2







          c)   Submit recommendations to the rulemaking agency who approved  
            the reviewed regulation; and



          d)   Post the review and alternative implementation recommendation  
            on its Internet website.



       2)GO-Biz is required to submit a report to the Governor and  
         Legislature, on or before January 1, 2021, on all regulations  
         reviewed, alternative implementation recommendations made, and a  
         description of actions taken by the rulemaking agency.



       3)Sunsets the provisions of the bill on January 1, 2021.
       EXISTING LAW: 


       1)Finds and declares that it is in the public interest to aid,  
         counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small business  
         concerns in order to maintain a healthy state economy.





       2)Establishes GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for  
         economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating  
         to business development, private sector investment, and economic  
         growth.  In meeting its mission, GO-Biz is authorized to make  
         recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature regarding new  
         state policies, programs, and actions, or amendments to existing  
         programs, in order to advance statewide economic goals, respond to  
         emerging economic problems, and to ensure that all state policies  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  3





         and programs conform to the adopted state economic and business  
         development goals.



       3)Establishes the Office of the Small Business Advocate to serve,  
         among other things, as the principal advocate in the state on behalf  
         of small businesses, including, but not limited to, advisory  
         participation in the consideration of all legislation and  
         administrative regulations that affect small businesses.  
       4)Finds and declares that there has been an unprecedented growth in  
         the number of administrative regulations in recent years and that  
         correcting the problems requires the direct involvement of the  
         Legislature, as well as that of the executive branch of the state  
         government.  Further, statute finds and declares that the complexity  
         and lack of clarity in many regulations put small businesses, which  
         do not have the resources to hire experts to assist them, at a  
         distinct disadvantage.





       5)Establishes basic minimum procedural requirements for the adoption,  
         amendment, or repeal of administrative regulations, including  
         assessing the potential adverse impact of an action on California  
         businesses and individuals with the purpose of avoiding the  
         imposition of unreasonable and unnecessary regulations, reporting,  
         recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.  Among other  
         requirements, an agency is required to:



          a)   Base decisions on adequate information;



          b)   Consider the impact of a proposed rule on an industry's  
            ability to compete with businesses in other states; and 








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  4








          c)   Assess its impact on the creation or elimination of jobs and  
            new and expanding businesses.



       FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


       POLICY FRAME:


       Although the state has a vigorous public process that is designed to  
       allow the rulemaking agency to fully consider the comments,  
       suggestions, and economic impacts of proposed regulations on all  
       business - especially small businesses - state agencies are often  
       unable to clearly identify which types of businesses are potentially  
       affected by a proposed rule and assess the cost and complexity of the  
       proposed implementation model on varying size businesses. An intrinsic  
       conflict to California's rulemaking process is that those businesses  
       that may be most affected have the least ability to monitor the broad  
       range of state rulemaking entities, recommend appropriate alternative  
       implementation models or engage meaningfully in the often complex and  
       highly technical rule making proceedings.  





       Given that nearly 3 million firms in California have no employees and  
       90% of firms with employees have less than 20, having implementation  
       methods that are appropriate for small businesses in terms of time,  
       money, and expertise are important state's economic growth.



       This measure proposes to have GO-Biz and the Small Business Advocate  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  5





       review adopted regulations to determine whether modifications are  
       needed to reduce their impact on small businesses.  The analysis  
       includes information on the California small business economy, state  
       rulemaking practices, and studies on the cost of regulations to small  
       businesses.  Opposition concerns are explained in Comment 2.   
       Suggested amendments are included in Comment 7.





       COMMENTS:  


       1)Author's Purpose:  According to the author, "AB 19 is intended to  
         bring relief to the small business owners of California. Our state  
         consistently ranks as one of the worst business climates due to  
         heavy regulation and taxation. There is a direct nexus between this  
         unfriendly business climate and California's unemployment rate and  
         the highest poverty rate. Through the review of regulations  
         impacting small businesses, the office of GoBiz can shift that  
         environment to one in which small businesses are hiring new  
         employees instead of closing their doors or moving on to other  
         states. 

         Within the office of GoBiz, efforts have been made to aid small  
         businesses with the regulatory process.    This legislation pushes  
         those efforts further. Instead of simply accepting regulations as  
         they are, this legislation will do more by serving as a catalyst for  
         change. By identifying where the challenges and redundancies exist,  
         we can cut the red tape and clear the way for economic growth. "

       2)Oppositions Concerns:  The opposition raises a number of issues  
         relative to implementation of AB 19 including that the resources to  
         undertake a review of a majority of regulations adopted before  
         January 1, 2016, would be significant and that these resources could  
         be better spent elsewhere.  Another issue of concern is GO-Biz'  
         ability to review highly technical regulation and determine whether  
         there is a workable alternative.   The Opposition confirmed  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  6





         (4/24/2015) that the amendment did not remove their opposition to  
         the measure. 

       3)California's Small Business Economy:  Small businesses form the core  
         of California's $2.2 trillion economy.  Research shows that net new  
         job creation is strongest among businesses with less than 20  
         employees, that small businesses have historically led the state's  
         local and regional economies out of recessions, and that these  
         businesses are essential to the state's global competitiveness by  
         meeting niche industry needs.  

         Businesses with no employees make up the single largest component of  
         businesses in California, 2.9 million out of an estimated 3.6  
         million firms in 2012, representing over $149 billion in revenues  
         with the highest number of businesses in the professional,  
         scientific, and technical services industry sector.  As these  
         non-employer businesses grow, they continue to serve as an important  
         component of California's dynamic economy.  

         Excluding non-employer firms, businesses with less than 20 employees  
         comprise nearly 90% of all businesses and employ approximately 18%  
         of all workers.  Businesses with less than 100 employees represent  
         97% of all businesses and employ 36% of the workforce.  These  
         non-employer and small employer firms create jobs, generate taxes,  
         and revitalize communities. 




        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |   2011 Business Profile By Size (excludes non-employer firms)   |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |     Area     |  Employment  |  Number of   |  Percent of  |  Employees   |  Percent of  |    Annual    |
       | Description  |     Size     |    Firms     |    Firms     |              |     Jobs     |   Payroll    |
       |              |              |              |              |              |              |($1,000)      |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |United States |    Total     |     5,684,424|              |   113,425,965|              |$5,164,897,905|
       |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  7





       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |    Total     |       689,568|   12% of     |    12,698,427| 11% of all   |  $663,570,657|
       |              |              |              |  U.S. Firms  |              |  U.S. Jobs   |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |                                                                 |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |United States |     0-4      |     3,532,058|   62% of     |     5,857,662|  5% of U.S.  |  $230,422,086|
       |              |              |              |  U.S. Firms  |              |     Jobs     |              |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |     0-4      |       429,139|   62% of     |       702,508|   5.5% of    |   $35,472,447|
       |              |              |              |   CA Firms   |              |   CA Jobs    |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |                                                                 |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |United States |     <20      |     5,104,014|89.7% of U.S. |    20,250,874|  17.8% of    |  $732,759,369|
       |              |              |              |    Firms     |              |  U.S. Jobs   |              |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |     <20      |       614,538| 89.1% of CA  |     2,386,296|  18.7% of    |   $99,417,066|
       |              |              |              |    Firms     |              |   CA Jobs    |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |                                                                 |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |United States |     0-99     |     5,585,510|98.2% of U.S. |    39,130,875|   34% of     | 1,478,844,420|
       |              |              |              |    Firms     |              |  U.S. Jobs   |              |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |     0-99     |       672,360|   97% of     |     4,587,628|  36.1% of    |   194,611,832|
       |              |              |              |   CA Firms   |              |   CA Jobs    |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |                                                                 |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |United States |     <500     |     5,666,753| 99.6% of U.S |    54,998,312|  48.4% of    |$2,169,353,973|








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  8





       |              |              |              |    Firms     |              |  U.S. Jobs   |              |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |     <500     |       683,999| 99.1% of CA  |     6,331,871|  49.8% of    |  $280,857,823|
       |              |              |              |    Firms     |              |   CA Jobs    |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |                                                                 |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |United States |     500+     |        17,671|   0.3% of    |    58,427,653|  51.5% of    |$2,995,543,932|
       |              |              |              |  U.S. Firms  |              |  U.S. Jobs   |              |
       |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
       |California    |     500+     |         5,569|   0.8% of    |     6,366,556|  50.1% of    |  $382,712,834|
       |              |              |              |   CA Firms   |              |   CA Jobs    |              |
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |Source:  U.S. Census                                             |
       |http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/index.html                       |
        ----------------------------------------------------------------- 



         Reflective of their important role, the JEDE Committee members  
         regularly hear about the challenges small businesses face meeting  
         the implementation requirements of state, local, and federal  
         regulations.  While opponents of regulatory reform accuse small  
         businesses of trying to avert their responsibilities, businesses  
         that have testified before the Committee have repeatedly stated that  
         their goal is to achieve a regulatory environment that encourages  
         small business development, while still maintaining public health  
         and safety standards.  





         AB 19 does not authorize the lowering of any regulatory standard.   
         The bill provides for a second review of adopted regulations to  
         identify areas where modifications may benefit small businesses.








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  9








       4)Cost of Regulations on Business:  There are two major sources of  
         data on the cost of regulatory compliance on businesses, the federal  
         Small Business Administration and the Office of the Small Business  
         Advocate.  For the last 10 years, the federal Small Business  
         Administration has conducted a peer reviewed study that analyzes the  
         cost of federal government regulations on different size businesses.  
          This research shows that small businesses continue to bear a  
         disproportionate share of the federal regulatory burden.  On a per  
         employee basis, it costs about $2,400, or 45% more, for small firms  
         to comply with federal regulations than their larger counterparts.    


         The first study on the impact of California regulations on small  
         businesses was released by the OSBA in 2009.  This first  
         in-the-nation study found that the total cost of regulations to  
         small businesses averaged about $134,000 per business in 2007.  Of  
         course, no one would advocate that there should be no regulations in  
         the state.  The report, however, importantly identifies that the  
         cost of regulations can provide a significant cost to the everyday  
         operations of California businesses and should therefore be a  
         consideration among the state's economic development policies.

         Regulatory costs are driven by a number of factors including  
         multiple definitions of small business in state and federal law, the  
         lack of e-commerce solutions to address outdated paperwork  
         requirements, procurement requirements that favor larger size  
         bidders, and the lack of technical assistance to alleviate such  
         obstacles that inhibit small business success.

       5)Different Approaches to Regulatory Reform:  In general, the  
         Legislature's engagement on regulatory reforms has taken two basic  
         approaches.  One set of policies have addressed specific regulatory  
         challenges on a case-by-case basis.  The other approach makes  
         systemic change to the way in which rules are adopted, often adding  
         a supplemental more targeted review pre- or post-adoption.   
         Recommendations for systemic change have included:








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  10






          a)   Dynamic Fiscal Analysis in Appropriations Committee:  These  
            bills required an analysis of bills before the Legislature on  
            their impact on business and the economy.  Currently, the  
            Legislature's fiscal committee reviews focus on the bill's direct  
            impact on state funds, and most specifically on the General Fund.  
             The fiscal committee's analysis is not intended to include  
            legislations' potential economic impact on the state.

          b)   Substantive Administrative Review:  These bills shifted the  
            review of the Office of Administrative Law from a procedural  
            review of the regulation package to a substantive review of its  
            impact on business and the economy, including the sufficiency of  
            the assessment of alternatives.  Alternatively, legislation has  
            suggested that another state entity, such as the State Auditor or  
            Legislative Analyst's Office, could be designated to undertake an  
            expanded review of proposed regulations.

          c)   Enhanced Analysis of Alternatives:  These bills required a  
            more meaningful consideration of alternative implementation  
            models, which could lower costs or reduce the implementation  
            burden on small businesses.    

          d)   Post Implementation Analysis:  These bills required a review  
            of a regulation's impact five-years after its implementation.   
            Alternatively, legislation has been suggested that all  
            regulations have a sunset date, which would allow for full review  
            once the actual impacts could be identified.

         Until now, the first approach has been the most successful, although  
         by its nature it has had very limited overall impact on California's  
         regulatory business climate.  Due to their potential implementation  
         costs, a majority of the bills advancing the systemic approach to  
         regulatory reform have failed to move from the fiscal committees -  
         as illustrated in the comment on related legislation.   

         The most significant systemic change in recent years was approved in  
         SB 617 (Calderon), Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011, which required an  
         enhanced economic impact analysis for regulations anticipated to  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  11





         have an impact of $50 million or more.  The SB 617 process follows  
         the federal regulatory model (described below), however, it should  
         be noted that the state process is silent as to the assessment of  
         costs based on size of business.  

         The Legislature heard several bills to refine the SB 617 process in  
         2013-14 session including AB 2723 (Medina), which would have  
         required rulemaking entities to consider the specific impact of  
         major regulations on sole proprietorships, and AB 1711 (Cooley)  
         which moved up the economic impact assessment to the initial  
         statement of reasons for all regulations.  Ultimately, the Governor  
         signed AB 1711 (Cooley), Chapter 779, Statutes of 2014 and vetoed AB  
         2723 (veto message below).   

       5)Federal and State Small Business Advocacy:  In 1976, the federal  
         government established the Federal Office of Advocacy (FOA) within  
         the Small Business Administration for the purpose of protecting and  
         effectively representing the nation's small businesses within the  
         federal government's legislative and rule-making processes.  A few  
         years later, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted,  
         which provided a specific process for assessing and mitigating the  
         potential impact of federal regulations on small businesses.  The  
         federal process, which has been updated over the years, includes the  
         annual publication of a regulatory agenda, an initial and final  
         regulatory flexibility analysis, a mandatory periodic review of  
         adopted rules, and direction for a possible judicial review of  
         regulations.  The FOA serves as the "watchdog" agency for the  
         Federal Regulatory Flexibility Act.

         In carrying out its duties, the FOA regularly reviews federal  
         regulations and makes recommendations on how to reduce the burden on  
         small firms and maximize small business participation within the  
         federal government.  In 2013, the FOA issued 19 letters to federal  
         agencies requesting alternative implementation methods and  
         encouraging better technical review of proposed regulations.   

         Another FOA activity is the convening of issue-specific Small  
         Business Advocacy Review Panels.  Utilizing the FOA as a facilitator  
         has proven to be particularly useful in developing more detailed  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  12
                                                          




         comments and making specific and technical recommendations to assist  
         the rulemaking entity in modifying a rule to lessen its impact on  
         small businesses, without reducing its policy objective.

         Adopted over a series of years, California law has several but not  
         all of the core elements of the federal model.  As an example,  
         existing state law sets forth an extensive process for the  
         development and adoption of regulations, including requiring the  
         identification of potential adverse impacts on small businesses and  
         individuals, as well as the consideration of alternatives.  

         The process, however, places the primary responsibility for  
         developing alternative implementation methods on the impacted  
         parties.  As noted above, small businesses do not have the capacity  
         in terms of time nor expertise to follow every rulemaking process  
         that the state is undertaking in a given year, nor the expertise to  
         offer alternatives.   

         California's Office of the Small Business Advocate does not  
         currently comment on pending regulations.  GO-Biz has been included  
         in regulation as one of the mandatory report agencies for the annual  
         calendar of major regulations being developed or modified.  On a  
         case-by-case basis, both the state Small Business Advocate and  
         GO-Biz have assisted businesses in getting through the state's  
         regulatory process.  AB 19 proposes to expand these activities and  
         provide statutory support for a post adoption review of regulations  
         relative to their impact on small businesses including possible  
         alternative implementation methods.   

       1)Amendments:  This bill was initially set for hearing on April 21,  
         2015 before the JEDE Committee.  The author requested putting the  
         bill over to make changes to the bill as recommended in the  
         analysis.  The amendments include, but are not limited to, removing  
         the specific mandate to review all regulations, adding stakeholder  
         involvement in prioritizing the regulatory review, providing for a  
         final report on outcomes, and adding a sunset to the program after  
         five years.  Below are several further changes that author may wish  
         to consider.









                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  13





          a)   Given that GO-Biz has many existing statutory mandates and  
            that this is a pilot project, set a small number of minimum  
            reviews for each year.  Based on experience, GO-Biz may exceed  
            the minimum threshold.

          b)   Provide that the review be undertaken in consultation rather  
            than under the direction of the Small Business Advocate.

          c)   Clarify that the purpose of the review is to make, where  
            appropriate, recommendations on how to implement the regulation  
            in a less administratively burdensome or costly manner, while  
            meeting the same policy objectives.

       2)Related Legislation:  Below is a list of bills from the current and  
         prior sessions.

          a)   Legislation from the current session:

            i)     AB 419 (Kim) Compilation of Regulations:  This bill  
              requires the Governor's Office of Business and Economic  
              Development to compile annually all regulations adopted by the  
              state that affect small businesses and report this information  
              to the Legislature, as specified.  Status:  Pending in the  
              Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

            ii)    AB 582 (Calderon) Professionals in Public Service:  This  
              bill establishes the Professionals in Public Service Program,  
              under the administrative oversight of the Board of Equalization  
              (BOE), for the purpose of utilizing the expertise of private  
              sector professionals to help make BOE practices more accessible  
              to small businesses.  Status:  Scheduled to be heard on April  
              27, 2015, in the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation.

            iii)   AB 866 (E. Garcia) Small Business Impact Data:  This bill  
              expands the duties of the Small Business Advocate to include  
              assisting state rulemaking agencies in identifying the  
              aggregate number and size of business which may be affected by  
              a proposed new or amended regulation.  Status:  Pending in the  
              Assembly Committee on Appropriations.








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  14






            iv)    AB 1286 (Mayes) California Regulatory Reform Council:   
              This bill establishes the California Regulatory Reform Council  
              (Council) for the purpose of analyzing the holistic impact of  
              all levels of state and local regulations on specific  
              industries operating within the state.  The Council's  
              recommendations may be made to the Governor and the  
              Legislature, as appropriate.  Status:  Pending in the Assembly  
              Committee on Appropriations.

          b)   Legislation from prior sessions:

            v)     AB 393 (Cooley) GO-Biz Website:  This bill requires the  
              Director of GO-Biz to ensure that the GO-Biz website contains  
              information on the fee requirements and fee schedules of state  
              agencies.  Status:  Signed by the Governor, Chapter 124,  
              Statutes of 2013. 
         
            vi)    AB 1098 (Quirk-Silva) Small Business Regulation Report:   
              As passed by JEDE, this bill would have directed the Office of  
              the Small Business Advocate within GO-Biz to commission a study  
              of the costs of state regulations on small businesses every  
              five years.  Amendments taken in the Senate deleted the content  
              of the bill and added language relating to legal documents  
              provided over the internet with Assemblymember Gray as the  
              author.  Status:  Died in the Senate Committee on Rules, 2014.

            vii)   AB 1400 (Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development,  
              and the Economy) Export Document Certificates:  This bill  
              modifies the state's Export Document Program to accept requests  
              electronically, expedite approval of existing labels, and  
              extend the term of the export labels from 180 days to 365 days,  
              in order to alleviate backlog of exports of food, drug, and  
              medical devices.  Status:  Signed by the Governor, Chapter 539,  
              Statutes of 2013.     

            viii)  AB 1711 (Cooley) Economic Impact Assessment:  This bill  
              requires an economic impact assessment to be included in the  
              Initial Statement of Reasons that a state agency submits to the  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  15





              Office of Administrative Law when adopting, amending, or  
              repealing a non-major regulation.  Status:  Signed by the  
              Governor, Chapter 779, Statutes of 2014.

            ix)    AB 2723 (Medina) Small Businesses and Major Regulations:   
              This bill would have added statutory protections to ensure that  
              the costs of major regulations on the state's smallest size  
              businesses are considered when state agencies undertake their  
              economic impact assessment for major regulations.  Status:   
              Vetoed by the Governor, 2014.  The veto message reads: " This  
              bill would require the economic analysis for major regulations  
              to include a separate assessment of the impact on sole  
              proprietorships and small businesses.  I signed legislation in  
              2011 to require a comprehensive economic analysis of proposed  
              major regulations. The analysis must assess whether, and to  
              what extent, the proposed regulations will affect all  
              California jobs and businesses.  Agencies must also identify  
              alternatives that would lessen any adverse impact on small  
              businesses.  I am not convinced that an additional layer of  
              specificity based solely on the legal structure of a business  
              would add value to the comprehensive economic analysis already  
              required."

            x)     SB 176 (Galgiani) Outreach on Administrative Procedures:   
              This bill would have amended the Administrative Procedure Act  
              by requiring state agencies to make a reasonable effort to  
              outreach and provide notice to affected entities when  
              developing regulations.  Statutes:  Held on the Suspense File  
              of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2013. 

            xi)    SB 560 (Wright) Small Business Regulations:  This bill  
              would have made a number of reforms to help small businesses  
              grow encouraging more realistic regulations and a real  
              assessment of the actual costs of regulations to the business  
              community.  The bill would have: (1) authorized a state agency  
              to consult with "parties who would be subject to the proposed  
              regulations" rather than "interested persons."  It also would  
              have required the agency to notify in writing the Office of  
              Small Business Advocate and the Department of Finance (DOF) if  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  16





              the agency does not, or is unable to, consult with parties  
              subject to the regulation and reasons for not consulting the  
              impacted businesses; (2) revised the economic impact assessment  
              to include a small business economic impact statement as  
              specified; (3) required the notice of proposed adoption,  
              amendment, or repeal of a regulation to also include the small  
              business impact statement and removes the requirement for an  
              agency to make a specified statement in the notice of proposed  
              adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation if the agency is  
              not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private  
              person or business would incur in compliance with the  
              regulation, and instead required the agency to include a  
              statement describing how a private person or business could  
              comply with the proposed regulation without incurring a cost;  
              (4) required Office of Administrative Law to also return any  
              regulation to the adopting agency if the adopting agency has  
              not provided the above cost estimate and small business  
              economic statement; and (5) added restrictions for regulations  
              relating to a new or emerging technology, as specified.   
              Status:  Held in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality,  
              2012.  
          
             xii)   SB 617 (Calderon) State Government and Financial and  
              Administrative Accountability:  This bill revises the state  
              Administrative Procedure Act to require each state agency  
              adopting a major regulation to prepare an economic impact  
              analysis and requires state agencies to implement ongoing  
              monitoring of internal auditing and financial controls and  
              other best practices in financial accounting.  Status:  Signed  
              by the Governor, Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011.
         
            xiii)  SB 981 (Huff) Review of Prior Regulations:  This bill  
              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. Among other  
              information, the report would have included the regulations  
              purpose, identification of impacted sectors, direct costs by  
              sector, and an assessment as to whether the regulation needs  
              updating.  Status:  Died in Senate Committee on Governmental  








                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  17





              Organization, 2014.



            xiv)   SB 1099 (Wright) Streamline Implementation of Regulations:  
               This bill requires new regulations to become effective on one  
              of four dates in any given year.  This limitation is designed  
              to create a regulatory environment that is more predictable. In  
              addition, the bill requires regulations to be posted on the  
              internet website in an easily identifiable location for a  
              minimum of six months.  Status:  Signed by the Governor,  
              Chapter 295, Statutes of 2012.     
       REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:


       Support
       Air Conditioning Trade Association 


       Building Owners and Managers Association


       CalAsian Chamber of Commerce


       California Business Properties Association


       California Chamber of Commerce


       California Manufacturers and Technology Association


       Industrial Environmental Association


       International Council of Shopping Centers









                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  18






       NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association


       National Federation of Independent Business


       Pluming-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California


       Southwest California Legislative Council - post


       USANA Health Sciences


       Western Electrical Contractors Association 


       Western Plastics Association




       Opposition
       California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union 


       California Conference of Machinists 


       Engineers & Scientists of California 


       International Longshore & Warehouse Union 


       Professional & Technical Engineers









                                                                         AB 19


                                                                       Page  19






       The Teamsters


       UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO


       Utility Workers Union of America 








       Analysis Prepared by:Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090