<p class=ldtitle>Directing the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to update its 2016 study of the impact of regulations on Virginia's manufacturing sector. Report.</p>
Senate Joint Resolution 22 directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to update its 2016 study on the impact of regulations on Virginia’s manufacturing sector. The resolution builds on earlier JLARC studies from 2006 and 2016 that estimated the costs manufacturers incur to comply with state and federal regulations and examined manufacturing job trends in Virginia. It asks JLARC to produce updated estimates of current compliance costs, explain how those costs have changed since 2016, assess whether Virginia regulations go beyond federal requirements, and review major state agency actions since 2016 that have affected compliance costs.
The study also requires JLARC to compare regulatory compliance costs across Virginia industry sectors and, where data is available, compare Virginia manufacturers with manufacturers in other Mid-Atlantic and Southern states. Agencies of the Commonwealth must assist JLARC upon request, and JLARC must provide annual executive summaries and may issue a full report for publication. As a joint resolution, SJ22 does not itself change regulatory requirements or impose new substantive obligations on manufacturers; instead, it commissions a legislative review intended to inform future policy decisions.
SJ22 would not amend the Virginia Code or directly alter environmental, workplace, tax, or other regulatory statutes. Its legal effect is to direct JLARC, a legislative oversight body, to conduct a new study and to require state agencies to cooperate with that review. The resolution would generate updated data and recommendations that could influence future legislation or regulatory reform affecting manufacturers, but it does not itself reduce, expand, or repeal any existing regulations.
The bill appears to reflect a generally pro-manufacturing and regulatory-scrutiny sentiment, emphasizing economic vitality, compliance costs, and the need for current information to guide policy. The background language suggests support for revisiting whether Virginia’s regulatory environment remains competitive with neighboring states and whether state rules add burdens beyond federal requirements. There is no recorded committee debate or vote breakdown in the provided materials, and the measure was ultimately stricken at the patron’s request in Rules by voice vote, indicating no documented floor-level controversy in the available record.
The main policy tension underlying the resolution is between regulatory oversight and business competitiveness: supporters of the study likely view it as a way to identify unnecessary compliance burdens on manufacturers, while critics of such efforts could see it as a precursor to weakening health, environmental, workplace, or tax protections. Another possible point of contention is the resolution’s focus on comparing Virginia with other states, which may be used to argue for deregulation even if Virginia’s rules are already aligned with federal standards. No specific objections, amendments, or opposing arguments are included in the provided transcripts or vote history.