AB 2623 makes a one-phrase amendment to Section 39600 of the Health and Safety Code, altering the statutory text without changing the scope of the State Air Resources Board’s authority. The amendment substitutes the phraseology in the existing sentence; the legislative digest characterizes the change as nonsubstantive.
For most practitioners and regulated entities the bill has no operational effect: it creates no new duties, prohibitions, or funding. Its practical relevance is limited to statutory codification, annotated code publishers, and counsel who track textual accuracy in enabling statutes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the language of Section 39600 to modify a single phrase in the statute that authorizes the State Air Resources Board to take actions necessary to execute its powers. The change is grammatical/textual and does not add or remove any regulatory authorities or procedural requirements.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are limited to legal drafters, statutory codifiers, code publishers, and the State Air Resources Board’s legal staff who maintain statutory text and references. Regulated entities and the public experience no new compliance obligations.
Why It Matters
Even small textual edits can matter for code publishers, statutory annotations, and automated statute databases; they also occasionally trigger questions in litigation about intent when a text is altered. This bill is an example of housekeeping legislation with primarily editorial impact.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2623 changes just one sentence in the Health and Safety Code provision that describes the State Air Resources Board’s authority. The statutory sentence that authorizes the board to perform actions “necessary for the proper execution” of its powers is edited in wording only; there is no insertion of new powers, no limitation, and no delegation of authority to a different body.
Because the amendment is grammatical, the operational responsibilities that the Board exercises under the Health and Safety Code remain the same. The bill contains no implementing requirements, directive to the Board to change practices, or authorizations to adopt new regulations.
It does not appropriate funds or create new reporting duties.The meaningful effects are administrative and editorial. The Office of Legislative Counsel, the California Code Commission, the state’s statutory publisher, and private legal publishers will update the published code and any cross-references.
Counsel who maintain compliance manuals or statutory citations will likely record the textual change, but they should not need to amend substantive compliance guidance.Practically, courts interpret statutes based on substance and intent; a purely textual edit that does not change operative language or structure ordinarily will not alter the legal effect of an existing statute. That said, even apparently trivial edits can prompt challenges to textual clarity if an edit introduces ambiguity or an awkward phrasing, so practitioners should note the change and verify that published versions reflect the intended non-substantive nature of the amendment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2623 amends Section 39600 of the Health and Safety Code by altering the wording of the statute that describes the State Air Resources Board’s authority.
The legislative digest expressly characterizes the amendment as nonsubstantive — the bill does not change the Board’s powers or duties.
The text change is editorial in nature and creates no new regulatory requirements, authorizations, or penalties.
The bill includes no appropriation and the legislative summary lists no fiscal committee referral, indicating no anticipated state fiscal impact.
Implementation effects are limited to code maintenance: statutory publishers, legal databases, and agency counsel must update the recorded text and citations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Textual amendment to the Board’s general authorization
This is the sole operative change: the statute’s sentence authorizing the State Air Resources Board to take actions necessary to execute its powers is revised at the phrase level. The provision continues to function as the broad grant of authority to the Board; the edit modifies wording without altering the clause’s role as the enabling language for agency action. Practically, this changes only how the law is printed and cited.
Nonsubstantive classification and absence of fiscal effects
The digest labels the change nonsubstantive and records neither an appropriation nor a fiscal committee referral. That classification signals to codifiers and publishers that the Legislature intended an editorial correction rather than a policy change. It also reduces the likelihood of downstream administrative work beyond routine text updates.
Administrative and publication follow-up
After enactment, the Code of California and commercial statutory services will replace the prior text with the revised wording. Agencies that reference Section 39600 in rules, manuals, or legal memoranda should check cross-references and update internal citation lists; no substantive regulatory filings are required as a result of this bill.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Air Resources Board legal and administrative staff — they receive a corrected statutory text to reconcile with published code and internal documents, reducing minor citation mismatches.
- Statutory publishers and legal database providers — they will update printed and electronic texts, which maintains the accuracy their customers expect and avoids discrepancies across sources.
- Legislative drafters and counsel — the edit reduces a grammatical imperfection in a frequently cited enabling provision, marginally improving statutory clarity for future drafting and interpretation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative and agency publishing resources — staff time to process, post, and communicate the textual change to internal and external stakeholders, though this is routine and minimal.
- Private legal publishers and compliance teams — minor editorial updates to databases, annotated codes, and compliance manuals to ensure all references match the amended wording.
- Court clerks or litigators (potential, limited) — in the unlikely event the new phrasing creates ambiguity, parties may incur modest costs to address textual questions in briefing or motions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the value of keeping statutory text tidy and the risk that even minor wording changes create confusion or litigation over intent: cleaning up language promotes clarity and consistency, but each edit carries a small chance of introducing ambiguity that imposes disproportionate compliance or litigation costs.
The principal implementation challenge is purely editorial: ensuring consistent updates across the many places Section 39600 is cited. Automated legal databases, internal compliance trackers, and third-party guides must be reconciled so users do not see conflicting text versions.
That work is routine but can be time-consuming in organizations with extensive statutory cross-references.
A subtler issue is the risk—albeit small—of introducing awkward phrasing. The amended wording is described as nonsubstantive, but if the replacement language is itself clumsy or appears internally inconsistent, it could invite questions about legislative intent.
Courts generally look to substantive change and legislative history; they treat clean-up edits as non-operative. Still, a poorly executed textual fix can create transient ambiguity that requires an interpretive gloss in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.