BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       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         unnecessary, and outdated regulations have negatively impacted  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