CA Regulatory Explainer: Regular Versus Emergency Rulemaking

CA Regulatory Explainer: Regular Versus Emergency Rulemaking By Chris Micheli

            The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) is charged with ensuring that agency and department regulations are “clear, necessary, legally valid, and available to the public.” OAL is responsible for reviewing proposed regulations by California’s more than 200 state agencies and departments that have rulemaking authority.

The formal rulemaking process is established by the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is found in the Government Code, and the APA sets forth the criteria by which OAL reviews all of those regulations.

            Every department, division, office, officer, bureau, board, or commission in the executive branch of California state government must follow the rulemaking procedures in the APA, as well as those regulations adopted by the OAL as part of the rulemaking process, unless that entity is expressly exempted by statute from some or all of the APA requirements.

In addition, there are two types of rulemaking. According to OAL, the two types of rulemaking procedures that a state agency can pursue are regular or emergency. The regular rulemaking process requires that a state agency meet certain public hearing and notice requirements pursuant to the APA.

The emergency rulemaking process has different requirements, but generally includes a brief public notice period, a brief public comment period, review by OAL, and an OAL decision. Whether engaged in the “regular” or “emergency” rulemaking process, an agency or department will be bound to follow the procedural requirements found in the APA, such as the contents of the rulemaking record, timeframes, and opportunities for public participation.

The vast majority of regulations adopted pursuant to the APA are submitted to OAL as “regular” rulemakings. Unless a proposed rulemaking action is submitted to OAL as an “emergency” rulemaking or is otherwise exempted from the APA, the regular rulemaking process must be complied with when an agency or department undertakes a rulemaking. The regular rulemaking process includes comprehensive public notice and comment requirements.

 

The regular rulemaking process also requires that documents and information on which the rulemaking action is based are available for review and inspection by members of the public. This comprehensive process is intended to further the goal of public participation in the rulemaking process and to create an adequate rulemaking record for review by OAL and, if necessary, by the courts.

            In terms of “emergency” rulemaking, the general rule is that a state agency may adopt emergency regulations in response to a situation that calls for immediate action to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare, or if a statute deems a situation to be an emergency under the APA.

Because emergency regulations are intended to avoid serious harm and require immediate action, the emergency rulemaking process is substantially abbreviated compared to the regular rulemaking process. OAL reviews emergency regulations for compliance with the APA’s emergency rulemaking requirements. 

If an emergency rulemaking is undertaken, a Form 400 is used and this contains the proposed text and the finding of emergency as submitted by the rulemaking entity. These documents may be revised or withdrawn during the OAL review process. Unless the emergency situation clearly poses an immediate, serious harm that delaying action to allow public comment would be inconsistent with the public interest, OAL must allow five calendar days for public comments after posting a notice of the filing of a proposed emergency regulation on its website.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?

Another Reason to Limit Bill Introductions?  By Chris Micheli             As I did my final review of Governor Newsom’s actions on the 1,046 bills sent to him after the 2023 Legislative Session, I noticed that some of the Governor’s veto messages provide additional rationales for limiting bill introductions.             Out of 156 vetoes from the 2023 Session, the number one reason for the Governor’s veto was budget concerns or cost pressures. In fact, 41% of the vetoes used that basis. That by itself is not a reason to limit bill introductions, but another statistic may provide such a reason…             By my count, just over 1/3 of the bills vetoed by Governor Newsom likely should not have been sent to his Desk and, arguably, should not have made it through the process at all. In fact, perhaps they should not have been introduced at all? The bases for just over 1/3 of the vetoes by the Governor included these categories: ·          18% were deemed unnecessary ·         
Read more

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process

Frequently Asked Questions about California’s Budget Process  By Chris Micheli             What are the main parts of the California state budget? They are the Budget Bill, Budget Bill Junior, Trailer Bills, and Supplemental Reports.             What is the Budget Bill? This bill contains the appropriations and “Budget Bill Language”. Note that only a Budget Bill (or BBJ) can contain multiple appropriations. It requires a majority vote for passage and the bill takes effect immediately. There is just one Budget Bill. What is the “Budget Bill Jr.”? This is the bill that amends the main Budget Bill by making changes to multiple appropriations. There are often multiple BBJs. What is a Trailer Bill? This bill makes the statutory changes needed to implement the budget. It is the same as any other bill, but it takes effect immediately with a majority vote if it contains an appropriation related to the budget bill and is listed as a “trailer bill” in the Budget Bill. What is a Su
Read more

Can Any Bill Call an Election?

Can Any Bill Call an Election?  By Chris Micheli             In June 2024, we saw two bills that contain a provision to call an election.             Both bills contain a “plus” section at the end of the bill, which is an uncodified statute, stating the following: “this act calls an election within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.” Such a measure only requires a majority vote, unless some other constitutional provision requires a higher vote threshold (e.g., a tax increase). What is the basis for this statement? Section 8(c)(3) of Article IV of the state Constitution provides: “ Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.” However, there is no further guidance in the Constitution, nor in any California Code, regarding what a “statute calling an election” looks like o
Read more