SB 1457 (Borgeas) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (August 4, 2020)
Summary
Analysis of SB 1457 (Borgeas), as amended June 18, 2020, for the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy, chaired by Sabrina Cervantes, for the hearing dated August 4, 2020. The subject is state regulatory action: reduction or waiver of civil penalties. The analysis states that SB 1457 requires a state agency to assist small businesses and to establish by January 1, 2022 a policy for reducing or waiving certain civil penalties, limited to violations that did not involve willful or criminal conduct and did not pose an imminent threat to health, safety, or the environment. It lists registered support from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and opposition from the California Employment Lawyers Association and others.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“SB 1457 (Borgeas) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (August 4, 2020).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2020-08-04-sb-1457-jede-analysis-5e172fd303/
, SHA-256 4f71bd225e160a61032c568ac394905f68924b52b8d2782ae207bf865bb577c7.Full text
SB 1457
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2020
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE
ECONOMY
Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
SB 1457 (Borgeas) – As Amended June 18, 2020
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: State regulatory action: reduction or waiver of civil penalties
POLICY FRAME: Although the state has a vigorous public process designed to allow a
rulemaking agency to fully consider the comments, suggestions, and economic impacts of
proposed regulations on all business, state agencies are often unable to accurately assess the cost
and complexity of the proposed implementation method on varying sized businesses. An
intrinsic challenge to 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.
These challenges can result in small businesses inadvertently breaking laws and being fined,
sometimes significant amounts of money. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, the state
bears some level of responsibility for assisting the state’s smallest businesses and ensuring
penalties are justifiably applied. This bill proposes a method used in federal law since the 1990s
for mediating fines and penalties when a small business has taken the corrective action and the
violation was not willful, criminal, or posed an imminent health, safety, or environmental threat.
The policy analysis includes information on the California small business economy, studies on
the cost of federal and state regulations, and other background on the small business regulatory
program being proposed in this bill. While the bill is supported by a number of organizations,
including the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and local chambers of
commerce, SB 1457 has also received several letters of opposition. Concerns raised in
opposition letters submitted by the California Employment Lawyers Association and the
California Nurses Association are provided in Comment 5. Suggested amendments, which have
previously been shared with the author, are included in Comment 7.
SUMMARY: SB 1457 requires a state agency, as defined, to assist small businesses in
complying with statutes and regulations and to establish a policy that sets the parameters under
which the agency can reduce or waive certain civil penalties conferred on a small business, as
defined. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires a state agency to assist small businesses in complying with statutes and regulations
of the agency. This requirement may be met by meeting an existing requirement to have a
designated and active small business liaison.
2) Requires the state agency to assist a small business during an enforcement action by the
agency.
3) Requires the state agency to establish a policy by January 1, 2022, to provide for the
reduction or waiver of civil penalties for violations of regulatory or statutory requirements by
SB 1457
Page 2
a small business. The bill limits the application of this policy to only those small businesses
which meet certain specified criteria.
a) To qualify for a penalty reduction:
i) The violation by the small business did not involve willful or criminal conduct.
ii) The violation by the small business did not pose an imminent threat to health, safety,
or the environment.
iii) The small business had a low degree of culpability when its conduct is judged in light
of its size, length of operation, and the sophistication of its owners or managers.
b) When all three of the circumstances described above are met, the policy is to provide
guidance to the state agency on the factors that will be considered when reducing or
waiving civil penalties. These factors include, but are not limited to:
i) The degree to which the small business cooperated with the investigation.
ii) The degree to which the small business made corrective actions.
iii) The prior history of the small business in meeting regulatory requirements of the
agency.
iv) The degree to which the level of the penalty would impede the small business from
continuing to conduct business.
4) Authorizes a state agency to amend the policy from time to time to reflect current issues and
conditions affecting small businesses and the economy.
5) Requires public posting of the policies and annual reports about civil penalty reductions to
allow for transparency of the new policy.
6) Requires the state agency to notify the Office of the Small Business Advocate within 15
working days of certain actions being undertaken by the agency relative to the
implementation of this act, including the adoption or amendment of the policy and the
posting or removal of information on the use of the policy being posted on the state agency’s
website.
7) Defines “state agency” to include any state agency, department, board, or commission that
has significant rulemaking authority over small businesses while excluding the Franchise Tax
Board, the Department of Tax and Fee Administration or the Board of Equalization.
8) Defines “small business” as a business that is independently owned and operated, not
dominant in its field, has fewer than 100 employees, and has average annual gross receipts of
$15 million or less over the previous three years.
9) Conditions implementation of this bill on the Legislature taking the additional step of
approving a specified appropriation.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW – THE SMALL BUSINESS REGUALTORY
ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT:
1) Requires federal agencies to take definitive steps, consistent with objectives of the rule and
applicable statutes, to scale regulatory requirements to the businesses, organizations, and
SB 1457
Page 3
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. Among other actions, federal agencies are
required to:
a) Implement a penalty reduction policy for small businesses.
b) Be responsive to small business inquiries about compliance with the agency's regulations.
c) Produce Small Entity Compliance Guides for certain rules.
d) Submit final rules to the US Congress for review.
e) Involve small businesses in the development of some proposed rules through Small
Business Advocacy Review Panels.
2) Requires federal agencies to submit several annual reports on the reduction and waiver of
civil penalties. The most recent report requires reporting on:
a) The number of enforcement actions in which a civil penalty was assessed.
b) The number of enforcement actions in which a civil penalty is assessed against a small
entity.
c) The number of enforcement actions in which the civil penalty is reduced or waived.
d) The total monetary amount of the reductions or waivers.
3) Requires federal agencies to establish a policy or program to provide for the reduction, and
under appropriate circumstances for the waiver, of civil penalties for violations of a statutory
or regulatory requirement by a small entity. Under appropriate circumstances, an agency may
consider the ability to pay in determining penalty assessments on small entities.
4) Authorizes a federal agency to exclude from the penalty reduction program a small entity that
has been subject to multiple enforcement actions by the agency, a violation involving willful
or criminal conduct, and a violation that pose serious health, safety, and environmental
threats.
EXISTING STATE LAW:
1) Finds and declares that there has been an unprecedented growth in the number of
administrative regulations in recent years and that correcting the resulting 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.
2) Establishes the Office of the Small Business Advocate (OSBA) within the Governor’s Office
of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), to serve, among other things, as the
principal advocate in the state on behalf of small businesses, including, but not limited to,
advisory participation in the consideration of all legislation and administrative regulations
that affect small businesses. The OSBA is also charged with, among other duties:
a) Representing the views and interests of small businesses before other state agencies
whose policies and activities may affect small business.
SB 1457
Page 4
b) Receiving and responding to complaints from small businesses concerning the actions of
state agencies and the operative effects of state laws and regulations adversely affecting
those businesses.
c) Counseling small businesses on how to resolve questions and problems concerning the
relationship of small business to state government.
3) Establishes the position of the small business liaison within each state agency that
significantly regulates small business or that significantly affects small business. The small
business liaison’s role is to assist small businesses in understanding and complying with
agency rules and regulations. The small business liaison is, however, prohibited from
intervening in any pending investigation or enforcement action, or advocating for or against
the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any regulation.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. Amendments taken in the Senate Committee on Appropriations
state: “This chapter shall become operative only upon the Legislature making an appropriation
to implement the provisions of this chapter.”
COMMENTS & CONTEXT:
1) Small Businesses and Coronavirus: Economic developers, finance professionals, and even
the Office of the Legislative Analyst agree that small businesses have been particularly
impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. According to a national survey and separate report
on the impacts of COVID-19 on small and medium size businesses, both published by
McKinsey in April 2020:
a) 70% of businesses are delaying purchases, reducing current spending, and holding back
on making major investments. [While not an unexpected outcome, this level of delayed
spending has significant multiplier effects as its impacts move throughout the economy.]
b) 50% of workers at small businesses with less than 100 employees are at risk of losing
their jobs due to the pandemic. This represents over 2.2 million workers. This is a higher
percentage of job losses than those projected for larger private sector employers.
c) 40% of the vulnerable small business jobs fall within two occupational categories: food
service and customer service and sales.
d) 60% of the vulnerable small business jobs do not require a four-year degree, meaning that
displaced workers will likely not have formally recognized skills to help them get their
next job.
e) 55% of businesses felt that the economic impacts of the coronavirus were going to last
over one year, with 29% responding the impacts were going to be felt for three years.
f) 25% of businesses said they would be filing for bankruptcy within six months.
The McKinsey report ranks California among the top states in which small businesses are
and will be impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. The report finds that 92% of workers in
small businesses engaged in the accommodation and food sectors are at risk. For workers at
small construction firms, the report states that 54% are vulnerable, which is still a significant
impact. Regulatory relief is one piece of a broader set of policies to support small
businesses.
SB 1457
Page 5
SB 1457 authorizes the adoption of a second and supplementary review of discretionary civil
penalties on small businesses to ensure, in these difficult economic times, that financial
penalties associated with minor infractions do not lead to bankruptcies. Nothing in the bill
lowers any regulatory standard or lessens the authority of the rulemaking agency to make
mission-driven decisions.
2) The Role of Small Businesses within the California Economy: California’s dominance in
many economic areas is based, in part, on the significant role small businesses play in the
state’s $3.1 trillion economy. Two separate studies, one by the US Census Bureau and
another by the Kaufman Foundation, found that net job growth was strongest among
businesses with less than 20 employees. Among other advantages, small businesses are
crucial in the state’s international competitiveness and are an important means for dispersing
the economic positive impacts of trade within the California economy.
In 2017 (most recent full set of data), of the 4.1 million firms in California, there were 3.3
million nonemployer firms as compared to 763,803 employer firms.
Total revenues for nonemployer sole proprietorships, across all industry sectors, were
$118 billion in receipts in 2017.
Businesses with less than five employees are classified as microenterprises. In 2017,
there were 473,641 microenterprises which had one or more employees.
Microenterprises, including both nonemployer and up-to-5-employee businesses,
comprise the single largest segment of the California business community, representing
92.9% (3.8 million) of all businesses in the state.
The chart below displays 2017 data (most recent full set of data) on California employer
businesses, including payrolls, employment, and number of firms, which may be comprised
of one or more establishments.
California Employer Businesses by Size (2017)
Enterprise Number of
Number of Firms Employment Annual Payroll
Employment Size Establishments
0-4 473,641 474,301 737,168 $45.0 billion
<20 676,913 682,756 2,605,213 $125.5 billion
0-99 743,830 768,456 5,143,522 $250.5 billion
100-499 13,628 39,757 2,081,423 $125.0 billion
<500 757,458 808,213 7,224,945 $375.6 billion
500+ 6,345 133,164 7,671,680 $579.4 billion
Total All Employers 763,803 941,377 14,896,625 $955.0 billion
An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted or performed by one or more
paid employees.
A company or enterprise may consist of one or more establishments.
An establishment with 0 employment is an establishment with no paid employees in the mid-March pay period
but with paid employees at some time during the year.
This series excludes government establishments except for wholesale liquor establishments (NAICS 4248),
retail liquor stores (NAICS 44531), federally-chartered savings institutions (NAICS 522120), federally-
chartered credit unions (NAICS 522130), and hospitals (NAICS 622).
Source: US Census, SUSB Series
SB 1457
Page 6
Excluding sole proprietorships, businesses with less than 20 employees comprise over 88.6%
of all businesses and employ approximately 17.4% of all workers. Businesses with less than
100 employees represent 97.3% of all businesses and employ 34.5% of the workforce.
Microenterprises have many unique features and provide important benefits to local
communities, according to a recent study from the Microenterprise Fund for Innovation,
Effectiveness, Learning, and Dissemination (FIELD) at the Aspen Institute. These benefits
include:
Providing products and services tailored to meet local and neighborhood needs.
Stimulating an inflow of revenues to and within local communities.
Serving as catalysts for neighborhood reengagement.
Revitalizing neighborhoods that may otherwise have vacant storefronts.
Providing role models and support for future entrepreneurs.
These non-employer and small employer firms create jobs, generate taxes, support important
industry sectors, and revitalize communities. While their small size allows them to be more
flexible in meeting niche foreign and domestic market needs, it also results in certain market
challenges. These challenges include having difficulty in meeting the procedural
requirements of the state’s complex regulatory structure and the traditional credit and
collateral requirements of mainstream financial institutions. Specialized technical assistance,
access to credit enhancements, and targeting of state procurement activities help many small
businesses overcome or at least minimize these difficulties.
3) State Small Business Liaison: The small business liaison position was established in 2006
to assist small businesses in complying with state regulations [AB 657 (Cunningham),
Chapter 81, Statutes of 2006]. Existing state law requires each agency that significantly
regulates or affects small businesses to designate a small business liaison, who is responsible
for receiving and responding to complaints submitted by small businesses, providing
technical assistance, and assisting small businesses in resolving problems and questions
regarding compliance with the agency’s regulations.
While outreach and technical assistance is useful, the state small business liaison is
prohibited from intervening or assisting a small business during a pending investigation or
enforcement action. Once an enforcement action is initiated by an agency, the small business
is left to their own devices to successfully navigate the process, which includes accessing or
requesting any special small business provisions the agency may have included within its
enforcement framework.
At the federal level, a small business involved in regulatory action may call on the Small
Business Administration’s Office of the National Ombudsman (ONO) or ask for relief from a
regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board. In 2018, the ONO intervened on behalf
of 347 small businesses. According to the ONO’s annual report, in many instances, ONO’s
intervention resulted in positive outcomes for small businesses in the form of waived
penalties, fine reductions, recovered claims payments, and/or reversals of decisions by
federal agencies.
SB 1457
Page 7
SB 1457 takes a modest step forward in supporting California small businesses by
authorizing a state agency to assist a small business during an enforcement action and
requiring a second look at discretionary civil penalties with the possibility of having fines
reduced.
4) Cost of Regulations on Business: There are two major sources of data on the cost of
regulatory compliance on businesses: the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) and
the OSBA. While their work was conducted several years ago, the information is still
illustrative of the financial disparities regulations place on small verses large businesses.
The federal SBA has conducted a number of peer reviewed studies analyzing the cost of
federal government regulations on businesses of different sizes. This research consistently
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 and only 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 the significant cost regulations add to the everyday operations of
California businesses and should therefore be a consideration among the state’s economic
development policies.
Many small businesses in California will need to make extreme changes to survive the
economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes range from fundamentally
changing business models, protecting the health and safety of employees and customers, and
investing in ecommerce online technologies, to name only a few. Achieving all of this will
come at a much larger relative cost to small businesses and will be especially difficult for
small businesses that were already operating on thin profit margins.
SB 1457 allows state agencies to adopt small business fine reduction policies, but prohibits
reducing or waiving fines for violations which were willful, criminal, or would pose an
imminent threat to health, safety, or the environment. Suggested committee amendments
would further strengthen this list of prohibitions by excluding fines associated with serious
health and safety violations from the new policy and requiring that negligence be a
mandatory factor considered in determining any fee reductions.
5) Opposition to the Bill: Concerns have been raised by the California Nurses Association
(CNA) and the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), both of which have
submitted letters of opposition to SB 1457. According to CELA, the bill “seeks to create an
overly broad exception for small businesses that have violated labor, health, safety, or
environmental statutes and regulations… Take for instance an employer who simply decides
not to provide a worker with a wage statement. That employer may not be acting willfully, it
may not pose ‘imminent threat,’ and the employer may be less experienced and sophisticated
as a business owner. Nevertheless, by not keeping adequate records of time worked and
wages owed, the employer could be underpaying the worker and both the worker and
employer may not even realize it for months or years. Not only would that impact the worker
losing money that they earned, without time and pay records, the worker would have a very
SB 1457
Page 8
difficult time enforcing their claim for unpaid wages and determining just how much they are
owed.”
“Additionally,” CELA writes, “the Labor Code in many instances already takes into account
whether the employer’s conduct was ‘willful’ or unintentional in assessing penalties. For
instance, waiting time penalties will be imposed under Labor Code section 203 only for the
‘willful’ failure to pay all wages due upon the separation of employment. Section 210
provides a $100 penalty for a ‘failure to pay’ an employee or a $200 penalty plus 25 percent
of the amount unlawfully withheld if the violation is ‘willful or intentional.’ Thus, a policy
to further assess or reassess the employer’s intent or degree of culpability is unnecessary and
will only create confusion and inconsistency.”
CNA’s position aligns with that of CELA, while also raising a concern over the time
agencies would spend implementing the bill. “CNA asserts that it is inappropriate to let any
business off the hook for lawfully imposed penalties. Furthermore, under SB 1457, state
agencies will spend their time and resources on an unnecessary bureaucratic process instead
of protecting the health and safety of workers, families, and communities in California.”
6) How the Bill Works: SB 1457 establishes a process to stop a low-level infraction from
turning into the financial ruin of a small business. In accomplishing this, the bill retains the
power and expertise of the rulemaking agency in setting the appropriate considerations to
offer financial or administrative relief.
The bill requires each state agency to adopt its own penalty reduction policy for non-serious
civil violations by small businesses. While the bill sets threshold criteria and minimum
factors to consider when reducing fines, each agency has the discretion to adapt this limited
statutory framework to fit within the agency’s mission and other statutory requirements.
As an example, if the action related to the penalty was willful, criminal, or posed an
imminent health, safety, or environmental threat, the penalty is not eligible for a reduction
under this bill. Further, only those small businesses which, in the determination of the
rulemaking agency, had a low degree of culpability or fault may have the penalty reduction
policy applied.
The actual amount of the penalty reduction is also determined by each state agency, based on
a rudimentary set of statutory factors. These factors include whether the small business was
cooperative, corrected the problem, and has had any prior history of noncompliance. The
agency is also required to consider the financial value of the penalty and its impact on the
viability of a business. Nothing in the bill, however, limits an agency from adding other
factors or setting conditions relevant to the agency’s mission, purpose, and existing
regulatory scheme.
California’s regulatory environment is complex and in many cases costly. SB 1457 provides
appropriate new discretionary power to a rulemaking agency to take another look at penalties
assessed to small businesses and, where appropriate, reduce fines while also ensuring
compliance.
7) Proposed Amendments: Below is a list of amendments the committee members may wish
to review when considering the bill. The author has agreed to these amendments.
SB 1457
Page 9
a) Delete the requirement for state agencies to assist small businesses during an enforcement
actions.
b) Clarify that the civil penalties eligible to be reduced or waived are only those penalties in
which the state agency has the discretion to set the financial value or penalty.
c) Replace the word “imminent” with the word “serious” in the provision relating to health,
safety, and environmental threats.
d) Clarify that a state agency is authorized to adopt guidelines, regulations, directives, or
other administrative documents appropriate to implement the bill.
e) Authorize a state agency to apply conditions to the reduction or waiver of penalties, such
as requiring the small business to take certain corrective actions or attend specified
training.
f) Delete the provision that required the state agency to determine whether the small
business had a “low degree of culpability when its conduct is judged in light of its size,
length of operation, and the sophistication of its owners or managers.” This amendment
is based on feedback from state agencies that this determination may be difficult to make.
g) Include “negligence” in the list of factors the state agency is required to consider when
determining a reduction in fines.
h) Make other clarifying changes consistent with the intent of the bill.
8) Similar Legislation: SB 1457 is substantially similar to AB 912 (Obernolte) and AB 1545
(Obernolte), both of which passed the Assembly Jobs Committee in 2017 and 2019,
respectively. These measures were held on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations’
Suspense File.
SB 1457 was amended in the Senate Committee on Appropriations to limit implementation
to an appropriation by the Legislature. The author will be requesting the Assembly Jobs
Committee to provide further amendments related to its funding and implementation.
9) Related Legislation: Below is a list of bills from the current and prior sessions.
a) AB 19 (Chang) Small Business Regulatory Review: This bill would have required the
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, in consultation with the
Office of the Small Business Advocate, to establish a process for the ongoing review of
existing regulations. The bill would have required the review to be primarily focused on
regulations affecting small businesses adopted prior to January 1, 2016, to determine
whether the regulations could be less administratively burdensome or costly to affected
sectors. Status: Held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2015.
b) AB 86 (Calderon) Entrepreneurship in Residence: This bill would have established the
Entrepreneurs in Residence Act of 2017 for the purpose of utilizing the expertise of
private-sector entrepreneurs to help make state government activities and practices more
streamlined and accessible. Status: Held on the Suspense File of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations, 2017.
SB 1457
Page 10
c) AB 419 (Kim) Online Regulatory Access: This bill would have required the Governor’s
Office of Business and Economic Development to create a web-access point on its
Internet website to include information about the state rulemaking process and a web-link
to relevant information on the website of the Office of Administrative Law, including,
but not limited to, information found in the California Code of Regulations, the
California Regulatory Notice Register, and the California Code of Regulations
Supplement. Status: Held under submission in the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions, and Economic Development. These provisions were implemented
administratively.
d) AB 582 (Calderon) Entrepreneur-in-Residence Act of 2016: This bill would have
enacted the Entrepreneur-in-Residence (EIR) Act of 2016, including the establishment of
a state EIR program within the Government Operations Agency (GOA) for the purpose
of utilizing the expertise of private-sector entrepreneurs to help make state governmental
activities and practices more streamlined and accessible. Status: Held under submission
in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 2016.
e) AB 657 (Cunningham) State Government Small Business Liaisons: This bill requires
certain state agencies to prominently display the name and contact information of the
small business liaison on the agencies’ websites and to notify the Governor’s Office of
Business and Economic Development and the Department of General Services of liaison
position vacancies, as specified. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 81, Statutes of
2017.
f) AB 767 (Quirk-Silva) California Business License Center: This bill would have
formalized the role of the Information Technology Unit within the Governor’s Office of
Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), which is responsible for the design and
maintenance of an online Internet platform, called the California Business Development
Portal. In addition, the bill would have rebranded the state’s permit and licensing
application as the California Business License Center and provided dedicated staff to
update and expand the California Business Portal. Status: Vetoed by the Governor,
2018.
g) AB 866 (E. Garcia) Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996: As passed by
JEDE, this bill would have expanded the duties of the Small Business Advocate to
include the provision of known information to state rulemaking agencies on small
business stakeholder groups which the rulemaking agency could use when disseminating
information about proposed new or amended rules. This bill would have also required a
state agency that develops a small business compliance guide in partnership with federal
agencies, under the federal Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-121), to notify and provide specified information to the Small Business Advocate
within 45 days after the guide becomes available to the public. Status: Used for another
policy purpose. The measure failed to move from the Senate Floor, 2016.
h) AB 912 (Obernolte) California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act: This bill
would have established the California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act for the
purpose of setting the framework by which a small business could be provided with an
opportunity to implement a policy to allow the reduction of certain penalties and fees.
Status: Died in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2017.
i) AB 1286 (Mayes) California Regulatory Reform Council: This bill would have
established the California Regulatory Reform Council to make reports and
SB 1457
Page 11
recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor related to the structure,
organization, operation, and impact of all levels of state and local regulations on
industries operating within the state. Status: Held without further action by the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2016.
j) AB 1545 (Obernolte) California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act: This bill
would have established the California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act for the
purpose of setting the framework by which a small business could be provided with an
opportunity to implement a policy to allow the reduction of certain penalties and fees.
Status: Died on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, 2019.
k) AB 1675 (Calderon) Entrepreneurship-in-Residence: This bill would have established
the entrepreneur-in-residence program within the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development for the purpose of improving outreach and strengthening
coordination with the entrepreneur and small business community. Status: Died on the
Suspense File of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 2014.
l) 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 states: “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.”
m) AB 3368 (JEDE) Petitions to Amend Regulations by Small Businesses: This bill would
have authorized the California Small Business Advocate and the agency-level Small
Business Regulatory Liaisons to issue written comments as to the validity of the petition
submitted by a small business to a state agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or
repeal of a regulation. Status: Died on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2020.
n) SB 606 (Neilson) Small Business Appeals Board: This bill would have established the
Small Business Appeals Board and authorized the board to grant a hearing and review the
order, ruling, action, or failure to act of any state agency upon petition of any small
business affected and to grant any remedy or impose any penalty authorized under
existing law governing administrative procedures. Status: Died in the Senate Committee
on Governmental Organization, 2015.
o) 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 by the
Governor, Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011.
SB 1457
Page 12
p) SB 828 (Runner) Small Business Appeals Board: This bill would have established the
Small Business Appeals Board and authorized the board to grant a hearing and review the
order, ruling, action, or failure to act of any state agency upon petition of any small
business affected and to grant any remedy or impose any penalty authorized under
existing law governing administrative procedures. Status: Died in the Senate Committee
on Business, Professions, and Economic Development, 2011.
q) SB 1228 (Runner) California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act: This bill would
have established the California Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act for the purpose
of setting the framework by which a small business could be provided with an
opportunity to implement a policy to allow the reduction of certain penalties and fees.
Status: Died on the Suspense File of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 2016.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Roseville Chamber of Commerce
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce
Oppose
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
File and source
- File
- 2020-08-04_sb-1457-jede-analysis.pdf
- Size
- 299,628 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4f71bd225e160a61032c568ac394905f68924b52b8d2782ae207bf865bb577c7
- Original
- No public link identified.