Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee Statement to Assembly, No. 5461 (2025)

Summary

An Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee statement to Assembly, No. 5461, State of New Jersey, dated March 20, 2025, reporting the bill favorably. The bill would change the "Administrative Procedure Act" so that State agencies post all public comments and data sets used for each rule proposal and extend the public comment period from 30 days to 60 days. A request by 50 or more commenters would require a 30-day extension or a public hearing. Agencies would file a notice of intent at least 90 days before a formal rule proposal. An agency whose rejection or modification of an administrative law judge's decision is overturned by a court would be liable for the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.

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

Full text

ASSEMBLY COMMERCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEE

STATEMENT TO

ASSEMBLY,
No. 5461

STATE
OF NEW JERSEY

DATED: MARCH
20, 2025

The Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and
Agriculture Committee reports favorably Assembly Bill No. 5461.

This bill would make various changes to the
"Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.)
and other laws that supplement that act, in order to alter the procedures State
agencies are required to follow when they adopt rules and regulations to
implement State and federal laws. The bill would also provide for the payment
of attorney’s fees in certain circumstances when the head of an agency rejects
or modifies the recommended report and decision of an administrative law judge and
the decision is overturned by a court.

Specifically, the bill would require State agencies to
make available for public viewing on the agency's website (1) all public
comments received related to each rule proposal issued by the agency, and (2)
all data sets and other information that were used by the agency to formulate
the proposed rule. The bill would also require that each rule proposal be
directed toward a single object, prohibiting agencies from bundling together
unrelated rule proposals.

The bill would extend the public comment period for
rule proposals from 30 days to 60 days. The bill would require that the
socio-economic impact statement for rule proposals include estimates, in
dollars, of the proposed rule's effect on annual expenditures by the State,
municipalities, businesses, and residents. The bill would also require rule
proposals to include a consideration of alternatives to the rule proposal, with
a justification for why the proposed rule is superior to the alternatives.

The bill would provide that, if 50 or more commenters
request a 30-day extension to the public comment period or a public hearing for
a proposed rule, this would constitute "sufficient public interest"
for the purposes of section 4 of P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-4) and the agency
proposing the rule would be required to grant the extension or hold a public
hearing, as applicable. In addition, the bill would require State agencies to
hold a public hearing on a rule proposal if the proposal is estimated to involve
a substantive increase in expenditures by the State, municipalities,
businesses, or residents. The bill would direct each State agency to formulate
standards for what constitutes a "substantive increase in
expenditures," but would establish a minimum threshold of $50 million in a
calendar year.

In addition, the bill would require State agencies to
file a notice of intent for each contemplated rulemaking at least 90 days prior
to issuing a formal rule proposal notification. Under current law, agencies
are authorized, but not required, to file a notice of intent. The notice of
intent is required to include a statement of either the terms or substance of
the intended action or a description of the subjects and issues involved. The
agency would be required to establish the time when, the place where, and the
manner in which interested persons may present their views on the contemplated
rule-making. The bill would also require agencies to review and respond to
petitions that claim that one of the agency's rules is in conflict or
inconsistent with another State or federal rule. Similarly, the bill would
require State agencies to analyze their rules to verify that they do not
conflict with other State and federal rules, prior to readopting them.

The bill would require the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) to include all public comments received, and all data and other
information used, for each rulemaking action in its online database of rulemaking
actions. The bill would also explicitly require State agencies to provide all
necessary information to the OAL for the development of the online database.
In addition, the bill would require the OAL to update the database daily,
rather than making "regular and timely updates," as in current law.

Finally, the bill would provide that, whenever the
head of the agency rejects or modifies the recommended report and decision of
an administrative law judge pursuant to subsection (c) of section 10 of P.L.1968,
c.410 (C.52:14B-10), and the modification or rejection is subsequently
overturned by judicial review, the agency would be liable for the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees incurred in the court challenge to the final agency decision.

File and source

File

2025-03-20_ACE_A5461_S1.htm

Size

9,265 bytes

SHA-256

60fcdc4f810e2c9289dc0e4f56622c4601f5debe6ffb6f58c93977a46ed1033e

Our copy

2025-03-20_ACE_A5461_S1.htm

Original

No public link identified.