BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 127
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Mary Hayashi, Chair
AB 127 (Logue) - As Introduced: January 11, 2011
SUBJECT : Regulations: effective date.
SUMMARY : Requires that a regulation or an order of repeal of a
regulation become effective on the following January 1 after a
90-day period following the date it is filed with the Secretary
of State (SOS), instead of 30 days after the date of filing,
except where already exempted.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
2)Governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal
of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those
regulatory actions by the OAL, under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA).
3)Provides that a regulation or an order of repeal filed with
the SOS becomes effective on the 30th day after the date of
filing, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office,
"Currently thousands of regulations are enacted by state
agencies throughout the year, becoming effective 30 days after
being filed with the SOS. This creates a constantly changing
regulatory environment for local governments and businesses that
makes it difficult for them to keep up with new regulations.
This is especially problematic when multiple agencies, often
with overlapping jurisdictions, pass different regulations that
can sometimes conflict, making compliance virtually impossible.
Local government officials and businesses have expressed that
the unpredictability of the process makes it extremely difficult
for local governments to enforce the law and for local
businesses to comply.
AB 127
Page 2
"This bill would require that a regulation become effective on
January 1st of the next year following a 90-day period after the
date it is filed with the SOS, except as provided. Modeled
after the process by which legislation comes into effect, this
would enable local governments and businesses to have time to
prepare to enforce and comply with new regulations, creating a
more stable regulatory environment for local governments and
businesses."
Further, the author's office notes, "Agencies would still be
able to enact necessary emergency regulations that come into
effect immediately upon being filed with the SOS."
Background . The APA governs the adoption of regulations by
state agencies for purposes of ensuring that they are clear,
necessary, legally valid, and available to the public. In
seeking adoption of a proposed regulation, state agencies must
comply with procedural requirements that include publishing the
proposed regulation along with supporting statement of reasons;
mailing and publishing a notice of the proposed action 45 days
before a hearing or before the close of the public comment
period; and, submitting a final statement to OAL that summarizes
and responds to all objections, recommendations and proposed
alternatives that were raised during the public comment period.
The OAL is then required to approve or reject the proposed
regulation within 30 days.
OAL is responsible for reviewing administrative regulations
proposed by over 200 state agencies for compliance with the
standards set forth in the APA, for transmitting these
regulations to SOS and for publishing regulations in the
California Code of Regulations. Existing law requires OAL to
review all regulations for necessity and non-duplication, and
requires OAL to print a summary of all regulations filed with
SOS in the previous week in the California Regulatory Notice
Register.
Staff comment . This bill increases the effective date for a
regulation or an order of repeal of a regulation to January 1
after a 90-day period following filing with the SOS, instead of
the current 30 days. This bill is inconsistent with AB 338
(Wagner) of 2011, which increases the effective date for a
regulation or an order of repeal of a regulation from 30 days to
AB 127
Page 3
90 days. AB 338 is also pending in the Assembly Business,
Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
Related legislation . AB 213 (Silva) of 2011, requires agencies
to mail or electronically mail a notice of prosed action to
adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation to local government
agencies or local government agency representatives that are
likely to be affected by the proposed action. This bill is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 273 (Valadao) of 2011, requires the Department of Finance
(DOF) to adopt and update instructions for inclusion in the
State Administrative Manual prescribing the methods that any
agency shall use in making certain determinations, estimates,
statements, and findings relating to the economic and cost
impacts of a regulation on businesses and private individuals.
This bill is pending in the Assembly Business, Professions and
Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 338 (Wagner) of 2011, increases the effective date for a
regulation or an order of repeal of a regulation from 30 days to
90 days and requires the OAL to submit a copy of disapproved
regulations to the Legislature when certain criteria are met, as
specified. This bill is pending in the Assembly Business,
Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 410 (Swanson) of 2011, requires an agency, upon a request
from a person with a visual disability or other disability for
which effective communication is required to provide that person
a narrative description of the proposed regulation and for an
extended public comment period for that person. This bill is
pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 425 (Nestande) of 2011, requires each state entity that
promulgates regulations to review those regulations, and repeal
or report to the Legislature those identified as duplicative,
archaic, or inconsistent with statute or other regulations or
deemed to inhibit economic growth in the state by December 31,
2012. This bill is pending in the Assembly Business,
Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 429 (Knight) of 2011, requires an agency, for any regulation
that it has identified as having a gross cost of $15 million 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
AB 127
Page 4
record for that regulation to the appropriate policy committee
in each house of the Legislature when the agency submits the
regulation to the OAL for approval. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
Committee.
AB 530 (Smyth) of 2011, requires a state agency, when it files a
notice of proposed action with the OAL, to include technical,
theoretical, and empirical studies, reports, or similar
documents, upon which the agency relied in rejecting each
reasonable alternative. Additionally, this bill would prohibit
an agency from rejecting a reasonable alternative unless the
statement of reasons includes at least one of these documents.
Further, this bill requires an agency to determine whether a
proposed regulation will have a significant adverse economic
impact by completing an economic impact statement, using a form
developed by DOF, as specified. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
Committee.
AB 535 (Morrell) of 2011, requires a state agency to review and
report to the Legislature on regulations that it adopts or
amends on and after January 1, 2012, 5 years after adoption, as
specified. This bill is pending in the Assembly Business,
Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 541 (Morrell) of 2011, requires the California Small Business
Board, until January 1, 2014, to review the state's licensing
and permitting regulations as they impact small businesses, with
special attention to the regulatory impact on small business
startups, and would require each state agency to cooperate with
the board in that review. This bill is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 586 (Garrick) of 2011, requires standing committees of the
Legislature to hold informational hearings regarding proposed
regulation with a gross cost in excess of $10 million. This
bill is pending in the Assembly Business, Professions and
Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 632 (Wagner) of 2011, requires state agencies to submit to
the Legislature a notice of a proposed action to adopt, amend or
repeal a regulation, if the notice identifies an economic
impact, cost impact, statement or finding related to the
proposed regulation, as specified. This bill is pending in the
AB 127
Page 5
Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
Committee.
AB 1037 (V. Manuel Perez) of 2011, increases the threshold for
business activities under the definition of "small business" and
requires agencies to reassess regulations five years after
adoption, as specified. This bill is currently pending in the
Assembly Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy Committee.
AB 1213 (Nielsen) of 2011, authorizes a chair or vice chair of a
standing, select, or joint committee of the Legislature to
initiate a priority review of any regulation, as specified.
This bill is pending in the Assembly Business, Professions and
Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 1322 (Bradford) of 2011, adopts the regulatory philosophy and
the principles of regulation, as outlined in Presidential
Executive Order 12866, in order to achieve the same regulatory
benefits within the state, as specified. This bill is pending
in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
Committee.
Previous legislation . AB 1833 (Logue) of 2010, requires the
California Environmental Protection Agency, the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health and the State Air Resources Board
to complete an economic impact analysis prior to adopting,
amending, or repealing an administrative regulation. This bill
was held in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer
Protection Committee.
AB 1949 (Logue) of 2010, requires a state agency to review and
report on regulations that it adopts or amends on and after
January 1, 2011, five years after adoption, as specified. This
bill was held in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer
Protection Committee.
AB 1957 (Silva) of 2010, requires state agencies, when providing
notice of proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a
regulation, to mail the notice to local government agencies or
local government agency representatives that the agency believes
may be interested in, or impacted by, the proposed action. This
bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2466 (Smyth) of 2010, requires the OAL submit all regulations
packages to the Legislature and require that the appropriate
AB 127
Page 6
legislative policy committees review those regulations. This
bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2529 (Fuentes) of 2010, establishes, until January 1, 2016, a
process for peer review of economic impacts analyses for a
proposed regulation and requires OAL to send specified
regulations to the fiscal committees in both houses of the
Legislature if they meet certain criteria. This bill was held
in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development
Committee.
AB 2603 (Gaines) of 2010, requires every state agency to reduce
its total number of regulations by 33% by December 31, 2012.
This bill was held in the Assembly Business, Professions and
Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 2738 (Niello), Chapter 398, Statutes of 2010, requires the
initial statement of reasons submitted by an agency to the OAL
to include a description of any performance standard that was
considered as an alternative to a proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of a regulation.
AB 2118 (Villines) of 2008, prohibits state agencies from
adopting regulations that require the use of a specific
technology unless it has been operational and proven effective
for more than two years, or that would place an undue burden on
business on an annual basis and result in a significant loss of
jobs. This bill was held in the Assembly Business and
Professions Committee.
Double referred . This bill is double referred to Assembly
Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Forestry Association
California Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
AB 127
Page 7
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Engineering and Utility Contractors Association
Golden State Builders Exchanges
Industrial Environmental Association
National Federation of Independent Business
USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
Western Growers
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301