• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Not As Rare As an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, But Still A Rara Avis

By Keith Paul Bishop on May 8, 2012 in Administrative Procedure

In 2005, the birdwatching world was stunned by the announcement of the re-discovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, a magnificent member of the Picidae family thought to have become extinct more than a half century ago.  At the Office of Administrative Law, I recently spotted another rare bird.  In this case, it was a priority request for review of a regulation by the legislature. 

Under California’s Administrative Procedure Act, any standing, select, or joint committee of the Legislature may request a priority review of an existing regulation.  Govt. Code § 11349.7.  The Office of Administrative Law is then required to review the regulation for the compliance with the six statutory standards applicable to all regulations: Necessity,    Authority, Clarity, Consistency, Reference, and Nonduplication.  Govt. Code § 11349.1(a).  The OAL has 90 days to complete its review.  If the OAL determines that a regulation does not meet the one or more of the standards, it issues and order to show cause.  This sets in motion a lengthy review process that could (unless the Governor overrules the OAL) result in repeal of the regulation.  I asked the OAL about the frequency of these requests and was informed that this was the first in more than six years.  Here is the most recent request from the Senate Rules Committee and the notice from the OAL.

For those bothered by a particularly irksome regulation, the priority review process may offer an interesteing alternative to a costly court challenge.

For more on the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, see this April 30, 2012 article in the Arkansas News.

Office of Administrative Lawpriority legislative reviewSection 11349.1Section 11349.7
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Sealing A Contract May Mean Nothing Or 20 Years!
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me