BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 586
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Mary Hayashi, Chair
AB 586 (Garrick) - As Introduced: February 16, 2011
SUBJECT : Administrative regulations: legislative review.
SUMMARY : Requires standing committees of the Legislature, with
jurisdiction over a state agency proposing to adopt a regulation
with a gross cost in excess of $10 million as estimated in the
initial statement of reasons for the regulation, to hold an
informational hearing regarding the proposed regulation.
EXISTING LAW governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment,
or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of
those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office, "Under
the APA, no regulation adopted by a state agency is valid or
effective unless it directly carries out provisions of law and
is consistent with the law's purpose and intent. Currently,
state agencies can create and enact regulations that effect
Californians which may be contrary to Legislative intent with no
oversight or review.
"This bill will require a standing committee with jurisdiction
over a state agency proposing to adopt a new regulation to hold
an information hearing on the regulation if it has an estimated
cost of greater than $10,000,000.
"Regulations are meant to implement laws passed by the
Legislature and the Legislature is best qualified to ensure that
the proposed regulations are consistent with lawmaker's intent.
Unelected regulators should not exceed their authority therefore
an added level or oversight will alert and assist lawmakers in
clarifying where there may be ambiguity in the Legislature's
intent. This necessary oversight will provide transparency and
increased public involvement to the regulatory process.
AB 586
Page 2
"Our great state is overregulated and is losing business due to
more favorable business climates in other states. We can limit
unnecessary and burdensome regulations through legislative
review to stimulate our economy, create jobs and restore
prosperity to California."
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.
More specifically, the APA requires state agencies proposing to
adopt, amend, or repeal any administrative regulation to assess
the potential for adverse economic impact on California business
enterprises and individuals, and avoid imposing unnecessary or
unreasonable regulations. Agencies are required to consider the
proposal's impact on business, with consideration of industries
affected including the ability of California businesses to
compete with businesses in other states. Additionally, agencies
are required to assess whether and to what extent the proposed
regulation change will affect the creation or elimination of
jobs, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of
existing businesses, and the expansion of businesses currently
doing business within California.
This bill duplicates OAL's regulatory approval process by
requiring the Legislature to hold informational hearings
regarding proposed regulations with an estimated gross cost in
excess of $10 million. The author and committee may wish to
consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to pass laws
affecting the internal deliberation of the legislative branch of
government. Additionally, this bill is similar to the original
version of AB 338 (Wagner) of 2011, which contained a similar
requirement to provide legislative hearings of the regulation
adoption process. Negotiations led to the deletion of that
AB 586
Page 3
requirement from the bill.
Related legislation . AB 127 (Logue) of 2011, 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. This bill is pending in the Assembly
Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.
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,
AB 586
Page 4
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
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 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
AB 586
Page 5
proposed regulation, as specified. This bill is pending in the
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
AB 586
Page 6
packages to the Legislature and require that the appropriate
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.
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
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
AB 586
Page 7
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