Bill Text: CA AB1107 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Environmental protection: California Environmental
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-02-02 - From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [AB1107 Detail]
Download: California-2009-AB1107-Amended.html
BILL NUMBER: AB 1107 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 13, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Blakeslee
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
An act to amend Section 57004 of add
Section 57006 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to
environmental protection.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1107, as amended, Blakeslee. Environmental protection:
California Environmental Protection Agency: rules:
scientific peer review economic analysis .
Existing law requires the California Environmental Protection
Agency, or a board, department, or office within the agency, to enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences, the
University of California, the California State University, or any
similar scientific institution of higher learning, or any combination
of those entities, or with a scientist or group of scientists of
comparable stature and qualifications that are recommended by the
President of the University of California, to conduct an external
scientific peer review of the scientific basis for any rule, as
defined to include specified regulations and policies, proposed by
any board, department, or office within the agency, and prescribes
procedures for conducting that scientific peer review.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that
provision.
This bill would, at or before the time a rule proposed for
adoption is made available to the public at a public workshop or for
purposes of public comment, require the California Environmental
Protection Agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency, to complete and place into the rulemaking record an economic
analysis, as defined, of the rule. The bill would also require the
agency to solicit public comment on the economic analysis in the same
manner as on the proposed rule.
The bill would allow any interested person, within 15 calendar
days of the date of the public workshop or public hearing, to request
the agency to submit the economic analysis to external peer review,
and would prescribe procedures for conducting the external peer
review.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no
yes . State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all
of the following:
(a) The people of the State of California expect that their state
government will enact laws and promulgate regulations to the general
benefit of the people and that regulations promulgated will tend to
maximize benefits to society while minimizing costs.
(b) Administrative and regulatory actions can have significant and
far-reaching consequences for individuals, nonprofit organizations,
and businesses throughout the state.
(c) Administrative and regulatory actions should be based on
adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of the
proposed action.
(d) Administrative and regulatory actions that maximize benefits
to society while minimizing costs are preferable to actions that tend
toward the opposite.
(e) The agencies, boards, departments, and offices of the state
generally strive to promulgate regulations that benefit the people of
the state.
(f) The Legislature has in numerous instances required that the
agencies, boards, departments, and offices of the state take cost
considerations into account when promulgating regulations.
(g) The Legislature has specifically required that the scientific
basis of environmental protection regulations be subject to analysis
and peer review.
(h) The costs and benefits of environmental protection regulations
should be also subject to analysis and peer review.
SEC. 2. Section 57006 is added to the
Health and Safety Code , to read:
57006. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(1) "Benefit" means the reasonably identifiable significantly
favorable effects that are expected to result from implementation of,
or compliance with, a rule.
(2) "Cost" means the reasonably identifiable significantly adverse
effects that are expected to result from implementation of, or
compliance with, a rule.
(3) "Economic analysis" means an evaluation of the costs and
benefits of a rule, quantified to the extent feasible and appropriate
and otherwise qualitatively described, that is prepared at a level
of detail appropriate and practicable for reasoned decisionmaking.
(4) "Rule" means either of the following:
(A) A regulation as defined in Section 11342.600 of the Government
Code.
(B) A policy adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board
pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7
(commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code) that has the
effect of a regulation that is adopted in order to implement or make
effective a statute.
(b) At or before the time a rule proposed for adoption is made
available to the public at a public workshop or for purposes of
public comment, the agency, or a board, department, or office within
the agency, shall complete and place into the rulemaking record an
economic analysis of the rule and shall solicit public comment on the
economic analysis in the same manner as on the proposed rule.
(c) Any interested person may, within 15 calendar days of the date
of the public workshop or public hearing, request the agency, or a
board, department, or office within the agency, to submit the
economic analysis to external peer review. If the agency, or a board,
department, or office within the agency, receives such a request, it
shall enter into an agreement with the National Bureau of Economic
Research, the University of California, the California State
University, or a group of economists of comparable stature and
qualifications that is selected by the President of the University of
California, to conduct an external peer review of the economic
analysis for any rule proposed for adoption if, within 15 calendar
days of making the request, the person requesting the external
economic analysis peer review enters into an enforceable agreement
with the agency, or a board, department, or office within the agency,
that requires that person to fully reimburse the agency, or a board,
department, or office within the agency, for all of the costs
associated with conducting the external peer review.
(d) (1) No person may serve as an external economic analysis peer
reviewer for a proposed rule if that person participated in the
development of the economic analysis of the proposed rule.
(2) The person who requested the economic analysis peer review, a
person affiliated with the requester, and personnel of the agency, or
a board, department, or office within the agency, shall not
participate in the selection of the individual external economic
analysis peer reviewers or contact or communicate with the individual
peer reviewers during the pendency of the peer review. The identity
of the individual peer reviewers shall remain confidential until the
external economic analysis peer review entity submits its written
report to the agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency. The agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency, may contact or communicate with the external economic
analysis peer review entity for the purposes of entering into a
contract with that entity, as described in subdivision (c), and for
purposes of providing information as described in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (e).
(e) The agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency shall not take any action to adopt the final version of a rule
unless all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency, submits the proposed rule, along with the economic analysis,
findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the economic analysis
is based, and the supporting economic data and studies, public
comment on the economic analysis, and other appropriate materials, to
the external economic analysis peer review entity for its
evaluation.
(2) The external economic analysis peer review entity, within the
timeframe agreed upon by the agency, or a board, department, or
office within the agency, and the external economic analysis peer
review entity, prepares a written report that contains an evaluation
of the economic analysis. The agency, or a board, department, or
office within the agency may accept the findings of the external
economic analysis peer review entity, in whole or in part, and may
revise the proposed rule accordingly. If the agency, or a board,
department, or office within the agency disagrees with any aspect of
the findings of the external economic analysis peer review entity, it
shall explain, and include as part of the rulemaking record, its
basis for arriving at that determination.
(3) A public hearing is conducted to provide opportunity for
public comment on the written report of the external economic
analysis peer review entity and any explanation of disagreement with
the report included in the rulemaking record by the agency, or a
board, department, or office within the agency. Notice of a public
hearing on adoption of the final version of a rule shall not issue
until the public hearing described in this paragraph is concluded.
(f) The requirements of this section do not apply to any emergency
regulation adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11346.1 of
the Government Code.
(g) This section does not limit the authority of an agency, or a
board, department, or office within the agency to adopt a rule
pursuant to the requirements of a statute that authorizes or requires
the adoption of the rule.
SECTION 1. Section 57004 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
57004. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(1) "Rule" means either of the following:
(A) A regulation, as defined in Section 11342.600 of the
Government Code.
(B) A policy adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board
pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7
(commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code) that has the
effect of a regulation and that is adopted in order to implement or
make effective a statute.
(2) "Scientific basis" and "scientific portions" mean those
foundations of a rule that are premised upon, or derived from,
empirical data or other scientific findings, conclusions, or
assumptions establishing a regulatory level, standard, or other
requirement for the protection of public health or the environment.
(b) The agency, or a board, department, or office within the
agency, shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences, the University of California, the California State
University, or any similar scientific institution of higher learning,
any combination of those entities, or a scientist or group of
scientists of comparable stature and qualifications recommended by
the President of the University of California, to conduct an external
scientific peer review of the scientific basis for a rule proposed
for adoption by a board, department, or office within the agency. The
scientific basis or scientific portion of a rule adopted pursuant to
Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 25249.5) of Division 20 or
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 39650) of Division 26 shall be
deemed to have complied with this section if it complies with the
peer review processes established pursuant to these statutes.
(c) A person shall not serve as an external scientific peer
reviewer for the scientific portion of a rule if that person
participated in the development of the scientific basis or scientific
portion of the rule.
(d) A board, department, or office within the agency shall not
take any action to adopt the final version of a rule unless all of
the following conditions are met:
(1) The board, department, or office submits the scientific
portions of the proposed rule, along with a statement of the
scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the
scientific portions of the proposed rule are based and the supporting
scientific data, studies, and other appropriate materials, to the
external scientific peer review entity for its evaluation.
(2) The external scientific peer review entity, within the
timeframe agreed upon by the board, department, or office and the
external scientific peer review entity, prepares a written report
that contains an evaluation of the scientific basis of the proposed
rule. If the external scientific peer review entity finds that the
board, department, or office has failed to demonstrate that the
scientific portion of the proposed rule is based upon sound
scientific knowledge, methods, and practices, the report shall state
that finding, and the reasons explaining the finding, within the
agreed-upon timeframe. The board, department, or office may accept
the finding of the external scientific peer review entity, in whole,
or in part, and may revise the scientific portions of the proposed
rule accordingly. If the board, department, or office disagrees with
any aspect of the finding of the external scientific peer review
entity, it shall explain, and include as part of the rulemaking
record, its basis for arriving at that determination in the adoption
of the final rule, including the reasons why it has determined that
the scientific portions of the proposed rule are based on sound
scientific knowledge, methods, and practices.
(e) The requirements of this section do not apply to any
emergency regulation adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
11346.1 of the Government Code.
(f) This section does not limit the authority of a board,
department, or office within the agency to adopt a rule pursuant to
the requirements of the statute that authorizes or requires the
adoption of the rule.
