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 2
"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.