BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1286
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Eduardo Garcia, Chair
AB 1286
Mayes - As Amended April 13, 2015
SUBJECT: California Regulatory Reform Council
SUMMARY: 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. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that the legislature finds and declares that duplicative,
unnecessary, and outdated regulations have negatively impacted
economic growth and job creation. The Legislature further finds and
declares that state agencies and local governments are ill-equipped
to provide a holistic view of the total impact of regulatory action
from all levels and agencies of state and local government on
specific industries and types of businesses. With a view to
developing recommendations for the Legislature and regulators that
will promote economic growth and job creation, the Legislature has
created the California Regulatory Reform Council.
2)Establishes an independent 13-member Council comprised of:
AB 1286
Page 2
a) Five members appointed by the Governor;
b) Two members each appointed by Senate Rules Committee and the
Speaker of the Assembly;
c) Two members of the Senate, appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee, each registered in a different political party, as
specified; and
d) Two members of the Assembly appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly, each registered in a different political party, as
specified.
3)Specifies that the purpose of the Council is to analyze the holistic
impact of all levels of state and local regulations on specific
industries operating within the state
4)Provides the following relative to the Membership of the Council:
a) One member appointed by each of the Governor, the Senate Rules
Committee, and the Assembly is required to be a representative of
the business community;
b) Two of the members appointed by the Governor are required to
have professional experience in econmic modeling of public
policies and economic development activities with one living in
northern and one southern California;
AB 1286
Page 3
c) Members of the Council shall serve two-year terms with the
option of one additional term;
d) All Members are required to be appointed by March 1, 2016.
e) All vacancies will be filled in the same manner in which they
were appointed.
5)Specifies that for the sole purpose of funding that the Council is
to be considered part of the executive branch.
6)Provides that the members of the Council will serve without
compensation, but will be reimbursed for the necessary expenses
actually incurred in the performance of their duty.
7)Directs the Council to select from among its members a chair and
vice chair, who are prohibited from being registered in the same
political party.
8)Provides that six members constitute a quorum and requires the first
meeting of the Council to be held no later than April 1, 2016.
9)Requires the Council to establish a website and to, at least
annually, post a list of its activities and final reports.
AB 1286
Page 4
10)Sunsets the Council on January 1, 2022.
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)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.
3)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;
AB 1286
Page 5
b) Consider the impact of a proposed rule on an industry's
ability to compete with businesses in other states; and
c) Assess its impact on the creation or elimination of jobs and
new and expanding businesses.
4)Requires the Department of Finance to adopt, and rulemaking agencies
to follow, a specific set of regulations for undertaking an economic
impact analysis for regulations that are anticipated to have an
impact on businesses in excess of $50 million.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
POLICY ISSUE 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 rarely hear
from the broad range of small businesses that are potentially
affected. An intrinsic conflict within California's rule making
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.
Without having a realistic process for small businesses to participate
in the process, it is difficult for state agencies to adopt
regulations that have flexible implementation methods that recognize
the administrative capacity of small businesses, while still meeting
AB 1286
Page 6
the intended policy standards.
Given that nearly 3 million firms in California have no employees and
90% of firms with employees have less than 20, finding a means to
address this challenge is important state's economic growth.
This measure proposes the establishment of a Council to provide
selected regulations a second look as to their impact on specific
industry sectors. The analysis includes information on the California
small business economy, state rulemaking practices, and studies on the
cost of regulations to small businesses. Suggested technical
amendments are included in Comment 7.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Purpose: According to the author's statement, "For years,
forces as diverse as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, The
Silicon Valley Leadership Group, former Senate Pro Tempore Darrel
Steinberg, and former Assembly Speaker John Perez have all argued
that regulatory reform is one of the keys to expanding economic
growth and creating jobs. Unfortunately, the ability to identify
specific regulations that need to be updated or eliminated has
proved elusive. Although previous attempts at reform have focused on
the agency or department level, this approach addresses the
cumulative effect of all regulations impacting on our economy.
Compounding the problem, many of the effects of problematic
regulations are felt by small businesses, which do not have the
resources to take an active role in the rulemaking process.
AB 1286
Page 7
AB1286 addresses these issues by creating an independent, bipartisan
California Regulatory Reform Council. The Council will provide a
holistic view of California's regulatory environment. Composed of 2
professional economists, 3 members from the business community, 4
legislators, and 4 members of the public, the Council ensures a
diverse set of viewpoints in considering regulations as well as
legitimacy for the Council's recommendations. AB1286's Regulatory
Reform Council will move the needle on regulatory reform in a robust
and serious way."
2)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. Even if you exclude
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.
Excluding non-employer firms, businesses with less than 20 employees
comprise nearly 90% of all businesses and employ approximately 18%
AB 1286
Page 8
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|
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|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 | |
AB 1286
Page 9
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|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|
| | | | 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 |
---------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1286
Page 10
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 1286 does not authorize the lowering of
any regulatory standard. The bill provides for a second review of
regulations and the development of recommendations for consideration
and action by the Governor and Legislature.
3)Cost of Regulations on Business: There are two major sources of
data on the cost of regulatory compliance on businesses, the federal
SBA and the Office of the Small Business Advocate (OSBA). For the
last 10 years, the federal SBA 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
AB 1286
Page 11
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.
4)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:
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
AB 1286
Page 12
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
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
AB 1286
Page 13
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
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.
California law currently has several but not all of the key 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 alternative.
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.
While California has an Office of the Small Business Advocate, the
state advocate does not currently have the staff to formally comment
on pending state regulations. On a case-by-case basis, the
Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development has been able
to engage with other agencies on current and proposed regulatory
proposals through its Office of Permit Assistance, but again, state
statutory direction is permissive and not mandatory.
AB 1286
Page 14
6)Proposed Amendments: Below is a list of amendments the author may
wish to consider in bringing the measure forward.
a) Limit reimbursement to travel expenses related to meeting
attendance.
b) Limit reimbursement to Legislative members to travel expenses
not paid for by their respective Houses.
c) Delete the provision regarding a joint committee of the two
houses.
d) Require the agenda, meeting background materials distributed
by the Council, and a list of people who testified from the
meeting to be posted on the Council website.
e) Require final reports to be posted on the Council website.
7)Related Legislation: Below is a list of bills from the current and
prior sessions.
a) Current Session
i) AB 19 (Chang) Review of Regulations by Advocate: This
bill requires the Governor's Office of Business and Economic
Development, under the direction of the Small Business
Advocate, to review all regulations affecting small businesses
adopted on or after January 1, 2016, in order 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. Status: Scheduled to be heard on April
21, 2015, in the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic
Development, and the Economy.
ii) AB 419 (Kim) Compilation of Regulations: This bill
requires the Governor's Office of Business and Econmic
Development to annually compile all regulations adopted by the
state that affect small businesses and report this information
to the Legislature, as specified. Status: Scheduled to be
AB 1286
Page 15
heard on April 21, 2015, in the Assembly Committee on Jobs,
Economic Development, and the Economy.
iii) AB 582 (Calderon) Professionals in Public Services Act of
2015: This bill establishes the Professionals in Public
Service (PPS) 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 21, 2015, in the Assembly
Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
iv) 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: Scheduled to be
heard on April 21, 2015, in the Assembly Committee on Jobs,
Economic Development, and the Economy.
b) Prior Sessions
i) 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.
ii) 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.
iii) AB 1400 (Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development,
and the Economy) Export Document Certificates: This bill
AB 1286
Page 16
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.
iv) 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
Office of Administrative Law when adopting, amending, or
repealing a non-major regulation. Status: Signed by the
Governor, Chapter 779, Statutes of 2014.
v) 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."
vi) 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.
AB 1286
Page 17
vii) 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
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.
viii) 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
AB 1286
Page 18
by the Governor, Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011.
ix) 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
Organization, 2014.
x) 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
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Opposition
AB 1286
Page 19
None received
Analysis Prepared by:Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090