Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances broad amendments to Administrative Procedure Act after lengthy testimony
Summary
The committee released A5461, a detailed rewrite of rulemaking procedures that would expand public disclosure, require longer comment periods and add new fiscal and alternatives analyses; business and industry groups urged further amendments and enforcement mechanisms, while witnesses urged stronger requirements for agency transparency.
The Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee advanced A5461, a broad package of changes to New Jersey’s Administrative Procedure Act aimed at increasing agency transparency and public participation in rulemaking.
The bill would require state agencies to publish all public comments and datasets used to develop proposed rules, extend public comment periods from 30 to 60 days for rule proposals, require socioeconomic impact statements with dollar estimates of annual expenditures by affected parties, and mandate a 90‑day notice of intent before formal rule proposals. It also would require agencies to address alleged conflicts between state and federal rules and to hold public hearings when a proposed rule is expected to cause a “substantive increase in expenditures” (the bill sets a minimum threshold of $50 million in a calendar year).
Why it matters: Witnesses said agencies currently issue complex rules on short timelines, leaving stakeholders little time to respond; supporters argued stronger notice and data disclosure would improve the quality of rulemaking and help private‑sector compliance. Opponents — and some witnesses who supported the bill’s goals — said the measure as written could be burdensome, urged precise drafting and suggested mechanisms to ensure agencies actually comply.
Testimony highlights
Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association supported the bill but asked for additional reforms, including requirements that agencies periodically update the scientific studies underpinning rules. Cantor said many foundational studies are decades old and not publicly available, and he urged standards making agencies’ fiscal and scientific analyses verifiable.
Dennis Hart of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey told the committee the Administrative Procedures Act has become "just that, procedures" and that the rulemaking process is expensive and time consuming to challenge. "When the department issues a rule and it appears during that entire public comment period, they will not answer any questions you ask them," Hart said, describing the limits of back‑and‑forth between agencies and stakeholders.
Ray Cantor and Hart both urged the committee to consider amendments that strengthen the obligation of agencies to produce usable underlying data and to respond to substantive technical comments.
Committee action
The committee voted to release A5461 to the full Assembly. Supporters said the changes would make rulemaking more transparent and responsive; opponents warned of unintended workload and legal consequences and suggested targeted fixes and stronger enforcement mechanisms.
Ending
Supporters said they will work with sponsors to refine language and propose amendments that preserve the bill's transparency goals while addressing concerns about feasibility and court review. The bill includes a provision that would make agencies liable for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees if an agency head rejects or modifies an administrative law judge's recommendation and a court later overturns that change.
