Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124

04/03/2019 01:00 PM RESOURCES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed until 1:45 pm --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be Set> --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be Set> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
         HB  27-REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS                                                                     
1:53:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  announced that the  first order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An  Act relating to the manufacture, sale,                                                               
distribution, and  labeling of child-related  products containing                                                               
certain  flame retardant  chemicals;  relating  to an  interstate                                                               
chemicals  clearinghouse;  adding  unlawful acts  to  the  Alaska                                                               
Unfair  Trade   Practices  and   Consumer  Protection   Act;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Vice Chair Hopkins.                                                                           
1:53:11 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
1:53:44 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR,  speaking as the sponsor of  HB 27, provided                                                               
a   PowerPoint  presentation   entitled,  "HB   27,  Toxic   Free                                                               
Children's  Act."   She  cautioned  that  federal laws  regarding                                                               
chemicals  don't ensure  the population  is safe  [slide 2].  For                                                               
example, she noted,  many things have changed  in the manufacture                                                               
of  products  since  passage of  the  1910  federal  Insecticide,                                                               
Fungicide,  and Rodenticide  Act  and the  1938  Food, Drug,  and                                                               
Cosmetic Act.  The 1976  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), she                                                               
continued, was  updated [in 2016]  but is  still so weak  that it                                                               
doesn't  even ban  asbestos, a  known carcinogen.   Asbestos  has                                                               
been   taken  out   of  manufacturing   because   of  its   known                                                               
carcinogenic effects, she  added, but the law doesn't  ban it and                                                               
it's examples like this that point  to why work must be continued                                                               
to update laws based on current information.                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR explained  that the  2008 Consumer  Product Safety                                                               
Improvement  Act  provides that  children  must  be used  as  the                                                               
benchmark  for chemical  safety [slides  3-5].   She pointed  out                                                               
that many  of the  60,000 chemicals  in use in  the U.S.  in 2008                                                               
were grandfathered in  by TSCA in 1976 despite  never having been                                                               
tested for  adverse effects on  human health or  the environment.                                                               
Between the  1976 and  2008 laws, she  continued, it  was learned                                                               
that  children  are much  more  vulnerable  to chemical  exposure                                                               
because  of  being  on  the ground,  putting  things  into  their                                                               
mouths, and  their higher metabolisms.   However,  she continued,                                                               
very few chemicals have been  retested since the 2008 law because                                                               
it is  very difficult  to establish causation  for exposure  to a                                                               
single  chemical since  each  person has  a  different amount  of                                                               
exposure  to a  given chemical.    For example,  she noted,  some                                                               
people eat organic  foods and some do not, and  women tend to use                                                               
personal  care products,  which contain  many different  types of                                                               
chemicals, much more often than do men.                                                                                         
2:00:06 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR warned  that  even for  chemicals  that have  been                                                               
regulated or approved by a  federal agency, much was done without                                                               
any scientific foundation  and much more is now known  today.  It                                                               
was previously thought, she said,  that significant exposure to a                                                               
chemical was  needed for it  to have adverse health  impacts, but                                                               
it is  now known that only  a few incidents of  exposure can have                                                               
adverse  health impacts.   However,  she reiterated,  it is  very                                                               
difficult to establish a direct  link that a person's exposure to                                                               
a  particular  chemical  caused their  cancer.    Therefore,  she                                                               
suggested,  a  precautionary  approach  should be  taken  that  a                                                               
chemical not  be used if  it can't  absolutely be stated  that it                                                               
doesn't cause harm.                                                                                                             
2:00:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether  it is the importing and                                                               
manufacturing of products that is being talked about by HB 27.                                                                  
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that since  Alaska isn't a big manufacturer                                                               
of products it  would be mostly imported products.   For example,                                                               
she said, flame retardants are  used in upholstered furniture and                                                               
therefore  products  purchased  for  one's home  may  have  these                                                               
chemicals.  It  has been learned, she continued,  that much lower                                                               
levels of exposure  can be problematic and having  these items in                                                               
the home  results in continuous exposure,  particularly in Alaska                                                               
where doors  are kept closed, thereby  intensifying the exposure.                                                               
It is  not where an  item is  manufactured, she noted,  but about                                                               
exposure  in  the  home  or workplace.    Responding  further  to                                                               
Representative Rauscher, Co-Chair Tarr  explained HB 27 would put                                                               
restrictions  on the  manufacturers of  products and  the use  of                                                               
2:02:16 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR returned to her  presentation of HB 27 and reviewed                                                               
the health concerns related to  exposure to the chemicals used in                                                               
products  [slides 6-7].   She  explained  that chemical  exposure                                                               
occurs  in  three  ways -  absorption,  inhalation,  and  eating.                                                               
Absorption  occurs  when  personal   care  products  are  applied                                                               
directly to  the skin.   Inhalation occurs when  flame retardants                                                               
in furniture break down and become  dust in the home that is then                                                               
inhaled.   Eating occurs  when pesticides  are applied  to fruits                                                               
and other  foods.   She further  explained that  firefighters are                                                               
exposed to  inhaling flame  retardants when  a home  catches fire                                                               
and the furniture  burns.  Inhalation, she noted,  is the primary                                                               
route for chemical exposure that is talked about [under HB 27].                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TARR discussed  slides 8-9.  The  chemical components of                                                               
flame retardants are polybrominated  diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), she                                                               
explained.  The first bill on  this issue was introduced 10 years                                                               
ago, she continued, and there has  been more and more evidence of                                                               
the  health  impacts  since  then,  as  well  as  more  and  more                                                               
incidents of rare cancers among  firefighters.  This has been the                                                               
catalyst to make change at the state level, she added.                                                                          
CO-CHAIR  TARR  noted  that PBDEs  are  structurally  similar  to                                                               
polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs).   She  explained  that  these                                                               
chemicals are  problematic because they bio  accumulate in blood,                                                               
breast milk, and fat tissues.   Northern residents have increased                                                               
exposure  to  these  chemicals, she  further  explained,  because                                                               
global  wind and  water patterns  help chemicals  migrate to  the                                                               
poles; this  movement and intensification of  chemicals is called                                                               
the  "grasshopper effect."   Tests  show, for  example, that  the                                                               
breast  milk  of  mothers  in  [Canada's]  Northwest  Territories                                                               
contains   many  chemicals   even   though   the  chemicals   are                                                               
manufactured very  far away.   She pointed  out that  global wind                                                               
and water  patterns expose Alaskans  to chemicals  from Southeast                                                               
Asia  and further  noted that  [flame retardants]  are a  leading                                                               
cause of cancer in firefighters.                                                                                                
2:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  addressed why flame  retardant chemicals  are used                                                               
[slide  10].   Before  self-extinguishing  cigarettes, she  said,                                                               
many home fires occurred because  of people falling asleep [while                                                               
holding]  a burning  cigarette.   In response  during the  1970s,                                                               
flammability standards were passed  that required furniture to be                                                               
able  to  be  exposed  to   a  certain  amount  of  fire  without                                                               
combusting, the  idea being to give  a person enough time  to get                                                               
out of the  home before it became engulfed in  fire.  While self-                                                               
extinguishing cigarettes  resolved this problem, she  stated, the                                                               
use of  flame retardants in  furniture was continued.   In recent                                                               
years, she  noted, many  states have passed  laws in  response to                                                               
the evidence about the adverse health impacts.                                                                                  
CO-CHAIR  TARR  reviewed  places   in  the  home  where  chemical                                                               
exposure occurs [slides 11-12] and  pointed out that children are                                                               
more exposed because they crawl on  the floor, put their hands in                                                               
their  mouths,  and  chew  on   things.    Exposure  occurs  from                                                               
upholstered furniture,  plastic casings  of electronics,  dust in                                                               
carpet padding, [and  foam products], she noted, and  this is why                                                               
firefighters are so exposed to  these chemicals when a home burns                                                               
and all these exposure routes are in flames.                                                                                    
2:09:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked  when self-extinguishing cigarettes                                                               
started to be made and whether it is a chemical that does that.                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TARR  offered her belief  that it  was in the  1980s and                                                               
that rather  than the addition of  a chemical it was  a change in                                                               
the design of  the cigarette, which put an air  space between the                                                               
tobacco and the edge of the cigarette.                                                                                          
2:10:23 PM                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR  HOPKINS inquired  whether the  flammability standards                                                               
of the 1970s are still in use today or have been updated.                                                                       
CO-CHAIR TARR  responded that  in some  cases the  standards have                                                               
been changed.   For  example, she  explained, in  2014 California                                                               
abandoned the rule that compelled  furniture manufacturers to use                                                               
flame  retardants and  some furniture  makers began  to drop  the                                                               
chemical.  The  economy dominating the West Coast of  the U.S. is                                                               
California,  she continued,  and the  saying is,  "How California                                                               
goes so goes the rest of the  West Coast."  She noted that Alaska                                                               
receives the products  that are manufactured for  the West Coast,                                                               
but  cautioned that  as states  make the  change, Alaska  must be                                                               
careful to not become the  dumping ground for products that don't                                                               
meet the standards elsewhere.                                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR TARR  addressed why HB  27 is called the  children's and                                                               
firefighters bill  [slide 12].   For firefighters, she  said, the                                                               
concern for exposure  is cancer and for children  the concern for                                                               
exposure is endocrine disruption  and reproductive damage.  These                                                               
chemical  products were  previously used  in children's  pajamas,                                                               
she  noted, but  this  was stopped  once they  were  found to  be                                                               
harmful.  It represents what  has been learned in the intervening                                                               
time, she  added, and doing the  best that can be  done with what                                                               
is known at a particular time and "we know better now."                                                                         
2:12:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  asked  what year  the  chemicals  were                                                               
removed from pajamas.                                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR TARR answered  that she would get back  to the committee                                                               
with the dates.                                                                                                                 
2:13:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  resumed her  presentation.   She pointed  out that                                                               
disruption  of  the endocrine  system  is  caused by  even  small                                                               
amounts  of  exposure  to  flame  retardants  [slide  13].    The                                                               
endocrine  system  is  the hormone  system,  she  explained,  and                                                               
because it  operates like an  on-demand system the  production of                                                               
hormones  is only  wanted when  those  hormones are  needed.   In                                                               
endocrine disruption, she further  explained, the chemical that a                                                               
person is exposed  to becomes the key that fits  into the lock of                                                               
a receptor within  the body, and this isn't wanted.   The body is                                                               
confused because  this [chemical]  key looks  like the  other key                                                               
and this  can result  in too  much or too  little of  the hormone                                                               
being produced or  the hormone being produced at  the wrong time.                                                               
She related that recent research  is showing early maturation for                                                               
females, a cause  of concern related to endocrine  disruption.  A                                                               
chemical  shouldn't be  used without  confidence that  it doesn't                                                               
have  an  impact,  Co-Chair Tarr  opined,  and  therefore  moving                                                               
forward  with a  change  is the  appropriate thing  to  do.   She                                                               
pointed  out  that  endocrine disruption  is  very  far  reaching                                                               
[slide  14], affecting  the reproductive  system as  well as  the                                                               
pancreas, thyroid, and other endocrine organs.                                                                                  
CO-CHAIR TARR presented four policy  solutions [slide 15] as they                                                               
relate  to HB  27 -  restricting the  use of  known chemicals  of                                                               
concern,  restricting  the  use of  known  possible  substitutes,                                                               
conducting Alaska research, and  collaborating with other states.                                                               
In the past, she noted, a  chemical of known concern was slightly                                                               
modified only to later learn  that the modified chemical also has                                                               
2:16:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  explained that page  2 of HB 27  addresses classes                                                               
of  chemicals, thereby  providing a  more comprehensive  approach                                                               
[than naming  just one chemical  of known  concern in a  class of                                                               
chemicals].   She said page 3  provides that once the  bill is in                                                               
effect,  products would  need to  be labeled  whether they  do or                                                               
don't have the flame retardant  chemicals.  A civil penalty would                                                               
be set up for failure to comply  with the law.  The penalty would                                                               
not be  too burdensome, she added,  but also not so  low that the                                                               
fine would  just be considered the  cost of doing business.   She                                                               
noted  that   [page  3]  would   also  provide   for  [voluntary]                                                               
participation in  an interstate  chemicals clearinghouse.   Since                                                               
it  is very  difficult to  conduct research  on these  individual                                                               
chemicals, she continued, this provision  would allow for working                                                               
with other states and building on  what they have learned and the                                                               
research  that has  been done.   Also  provided [on  page 3]  are                                                               
definitions, she  said.  "Child" means  "a child who is  under 12                                                               
years  of  age" and  "consumer  product"  means "clothing,  toys,                                                               
detachable  car seats,  nursing  pillows, upholstered  furniture,                                                               
bedding,  mattresses,  crib  mattresses, nap  pads  and  changing                                                               
pads, or  other products used in  the home primarily for  or by a                                                               
child or the parent or guardian of a child.                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR TARR  drew attention to  the committee packet  and noted                                                               
it contains letters  and statements of support  from citizens and                                                               
professional  firefighters from  across  the state.   She  shared                                                               
that last  fall the federal  government passed a  cancer registry                                                               
bill  and that  U.S. Senator  Lisa Murkowski  had the  bill named                                                               
after  Anchorage  firefighter Andy  Mullen  who  died of  a  rare                                                               
cancer caused  by exposure to  toxins.  She  added that HB  27 is                                                               
trying to be preventative.   She further added that the Anchorage                                                               
Assembly passed an ordinance that is very similar to HB 27.                                                                     
2:20:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the  definitions on page 3 of                                                               
the bill  and inquired whether  it relates to household  items as                                                               
they  pertain to  children  under the  age of  12  or whether  it                                                               
relates to all household items.                                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TARR  replied that the  focus is on  children's products                                                               
since children are  more vulnerable to the  exposure because they                                                               
are  still developing.   The  flip side,  she continued,  is that                                                               
firefighters are  exposed to the chemicals  should these products                                                               
burn during a fire.                                                                                                             
2:22:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   HANNAN  observed   that  the   bill's  narrative                                                               
[Section 2]  speaks to firefighters,  while Section 3  appears to                                                               
focus on children's products.   Therefore, she surmised, the bill                                                               
gives some  de facto protection  to firefighters if a  house full                                                               
of  new  children's  products   versus  old  children's  products                                                               
catches fire.   However,  she posited, other  than that  the bill                                                               
doesn't actually give any  additional protection to firefighters;                                                               
it only elevates the concern and educates the public.                                                                           
CO-CHAIR  TARR  responded  that  once  the  bill  is  passed  and                                                               
implemented,  a  manufacturer  wouldn't  be able  to  sell  those                                                               
products in Alaska.   The bill doesn't require people  to give up                                                               
any products, she continued, so  these products won't be gone the                                                               
next day, but  the bill would start the  process of transitioning                                                               
these products out and eventually  these products would no longer                                                               
be there and creating exposure.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  HANNAN asked  whether  the bill  deals only  with                                                               
children's products or also with the next couch she might buy.                                                                  
CO-CHAIR  TARR  answered  that   the  bill  includes  upholstered                                                               
furniture  and therefore  covers  the next  couch  that a  person                                                               
might buy under the definitions starting on line 24 of page 3.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN  inquired whether the bill  would cover the                                                               
transporting of furniture into Alaska  when a person makes online                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR replied  that that becomes trickier  because of the                                                               
federal   constitutional  prohibition   on  interstate   commerce                                                               
issues.  "You can prohibit things  from being sold in your state;                                                               
you cannot  prohibit things  from being sold  at the  state level                                                               
across state lines,"  she explained. "We do what we  can with the                                                               
tools that we have," she added.                                                                                                 
2:25:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  RASMUSSEN  stated  she  would  like  to  have  an                                                               
awareness program  come out  so parents  can look  into it.   She                                                               
expressed  her  concern that  proper  alternatives  might not  be                                                               
CO-CHAIR  TARR  responded  that  HB 27  tries  to  address  those                                                               
concerns  via its  labeling  section.   As to  where  to put  the                                                               
burden, she continued, the bill says  the change is wanted at the                                                               
manufacturing   level  so   when   it  changes   there  will   be                                                               
alternatives  that are  known.   Then  there is  the question  of                                                               
whether to  ask retail outlets  to do something  about education,                                                               
she  noted,  and while  she  isn't  opposed to  requiring  retail                                                               
outlets  to  do  that,  she  is  trying  to  find  a  balance  in                                                               
responsibility  and how  burdensome it  would be.   The  labeling                                                               
provision in the  bill is one way of trying  to address that, she                                                               
explained.   She added that the  same kind of innovation  it took                                                               
to develop these  products can be the same kind  of innovation to                                                               
develop new  products, and therefore  she is  looking at it  as a                                                               
business opportunity rather than an adversarial frame.                                                                          
2:28:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER, in  regard to  labeling, asked  whether                                                               
the onus  would be on the  retail store or on  the product coming                                                               
from outside [the state].                                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR TARR  answered that the  onus would be  on manufacturers                                                               
to implement - to state on  the label whether the product does or                                                               
does not contain those chemicals.                                                                                               
2:29:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SPOHNHOLZ  recalled  that the  Toxics  Substances                                                               
Control  Act  was  updated  in 2016  with  the  Frank  Lautenberg                                                               
Chemical  Safety for  the 21st  Century  Act.   She surmised  the                                                               
update  didn't incorporate  labeling  requirements or  exclusions                                                               
for these chemicals specifically.                                                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR replied, "No."                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether  there are other states                                                               
that have already passed or have introduced similar legislation.                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR responded,  "Yes, to  both."   She said  she would                                                               
provide the  committee with the  list of approximately  12 states                                                               
that have already passed legislation.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated she  would appreciate getting the                                                               
list because  she has heard  concerns about whether  [Alaska] can                                                               
accomplish this on its own.   However, she continued, it is known                                                               
that states  are often incubators  for what becomes  federal laws                                                               
and if [Alaska]  is part of a movement that  is moving across the                                                               
nation, that could  then set precedent and allow  for federal law                                                               
to be enacted as well.   It is clearly important, she added, that                                                               
[Alaska]  update   its  practices  with  new   information  about                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR concurred and said  that that is often the thinking                                                               
when states are  working on this.  From a  manufacturing point of                                                               
view, she  noted, it  is easier to  have a  consistent nationwide                                                               
policy rather than a patchwork, and  in that regard she has tried                                                               
to make  the language of HB  27 similar to that  of the Anchorage                                                               
ordinance so there aren't two sets of rules in the state.                                                                       
2:31:31 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
[VICE CHAIR HOPKINS returned the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.]                                                                       
2:31:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony.                                                                                         
CAROL  BACON testified  in support  of HB  27.   She said  she is                                                               
retired  Anchorage  firefighter  who   had  a  rewarding  25-year                                                               
career.  However,  she continued, shortly after  retiring she was                                                               
diagnosed  with a  rare  blood  cancer, making  her  one of  many                                                               
Anchorage firefighters who have been diagnosed with cancer.                                                                     
MS.  BACON explained  that  flame  retardants generate  excessive                                                               
smoke and  toxic chemical byproducts that  expose firefighters to                                                               
a  toxic  soup  when  a  structure is  burning.    Despite  their                                                               
training  and protective  gear, she  continued, firefighters  are                                                               
exposed to  toxins that have  been linked to cancer.   Protective                                                               
gear  doesn't   completely  protect  firefighters   because  [the                                                               
toxins]  can  accumulate inside  the  protective  gear and  enter                                                               
firefighters' bodies through dermal contact.                                                                                    
MS. BACON said firefighters are  diagnosed with cancers at a much                                                               
higher rate than  the general public.  She related  that a survey                                                               
conducted with the  San Francisco Fire Department  found that the                                                               
rate of  breast cancer  among female  firefighters aged  40-50 is                                                               
six times the  national average.  The estimated cost  of her bone                                                               
marrow transplant,  she reported, was  close to $1 million.   She                                                               
spent six weeks  in the hospital and four months  living near the                                                               
hospital in Seattle,  she continued.  Although  her treatment was                                                               
mentally and  physically taxing, she said  she fortunately didn't                                                               
have to  cover the  cost, instead the  burden fell  on taxpayers.                                                               
Cancer  is  the biggest  killer  of  America's firefighters,  she                                                               
stated,  and  toxic  flame  retardants are  one  of  the  leading                                                               
culprits contributing  to firefighter cancer.   She expressed her                                                               
support  for HB  27 and  urged the  state be  more pro-active  in                                                               
banning flame retardants  for the safety of  its firefighters and                                                               
communities.   It is  a preventative step  to address  the cancer                                                               
epidemic that has become the fate of her occupation, she added.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  HOPKINS thanked  Ms. Bacon  for her  testimony in                                                               
support of HB 27.                                                                                                               
2:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
VYTENIS  BABRAUSKAS,  PhD,  Fire, Science  and  Technology  Inc.,                                                               
testified in support of HB 27.  He spoke as follows:                                                                            
     I  am Dr.  Vyto Babrauskas.    I hold  the first  Ph.D.                                                                    
     degree ever awarded in  fire protection engineering and                                                                    
     have been a fire safety  researcher since the 1970s.  I                                                                    
     invented  the   Cone  Calorimeter  and   the  Furniture                                                                    
     Calorimeter, which have  become the worldwide standards                                                                    
     for measuring  how fast something  is burning.   During                                                                    
     my  career, I  have  studied  fire retardant  chemicals                                                                    
     extensively,   studying  both   the  physics   and  the                                                                    
     toxicology     of    burning     fire-retardant-treated                                                                    
     From decades  of research, my conclusion  is that fire-                                                                    
     retardant chemicals are ineffective  if used in the way                                                                    
     that they normally are  used in child-related products.                                                                    
     They do not result  in such products becoming fire-safe                                                                    
     and do  not result in  consumers becoming safer.   But,                                                                    
     the health  research community has documented  at great                                                                    
     length  that  such  products are  likely  to  harm  the                                                                    
     health of  children, harm  the health  of firefighters,                                                                    
     and  adversely affect  our  environment, including  the                                                                    
     wildlife, which we should treat responsibly.                                                                               
     The  FR [flame  retardant]  manufacturing industry  has                                                                    
     misrepresented  at length  my  research, claiming  that                                                                    
     some of it  justifies the use of fire  retardants.  But                                                                    
     it does not, at least  as concerns fire retardants used                                                                    
     in the way they are used  in consumer goods in a normal                                                                    
     household  environment.   If you  see some  publication                                                                    
     claiming that I have found  some safety benefits for FR                                                                    
     chemicals, you can be assured  that the context was not                                                                    
     consumer goods as used in a normal household.                                                                              
     The  plethora of  harm and  the lack  of benefits  make                                                                    
     conclusions quite  obvious.   We should not  be putting                                                                    
     FR chemicals  into consumer  goods that  end up  in the                                                                    
     household  and  are  likely to  adversely  affect  your                                                                    
     children.  As  a result, I strongly  support House Bill                                                                    
     No. 27,  in efforts  to make  Alaska a  healthier place                                                                    
     for its inhabitants.                                                                                                       
DR. BABRAUSKAS  further offered his support  for the concept                                                                    
of   using  classes   [of  chemicals]   as  the   basis  for                                                                    
regulation, because  doing otherwise  is a  losing situation                                                                    
in terms of the "whack a mole game."                                                                                            
2:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice, testified in support                                                                 
of HB 27.  She spoke as follows:                                                                                                
     I am an  attorney at Earthjustice, which  is a national                                                                    
     not-for-profit environmental law  firm with two offices                                                                    
     in Alaska.  ... It's well recognized  that adding flame                                                                    
     retardants to  consumer products does  not meaningfully                                                                    
     improve fire  safety, yet the chemicals  find their way                                                                    
     into our children's bodies.                                                                                                
     The main  point I  want to  convey to  you is  that the                                                                    
     federal government  has not adopted  safeguards against                                                                    
     these  exposures despite  the well-known  health risks.                                                                    
     Both  the federal  Consumer  Product Safety  Commission                                                                    
     [CPSC]  and the  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency                                                                    
     [EPA]  have clear  authority to  protect children  from                                                                    
     toxic  chemicals in  consumer  products.   But  neither                                                                    
     entity  is   likely  to  use  this   authority  in  the                                                                    
     foreseeable future  and they  have not  done so  in the                                                                    
     ... I'm lead  counsel on a legal  petition submitted in                                                                    
     2015  asking  the   CPSC  to  ban  the   sale  of  four                                                                    
     categories  of consumer  products if  they contain  any                                                                    
     organohalogen flame retardant.   After several years of                                                                    
     consideration,  the  Commission granted  our  petition.                                                                    
     However, it  is unclear  when, if ever,  the Commission                                                                    
     will finalize regulations that  actually ban this class                                                                    
     of flame  retardants.  In fact,  because the Commission                                                                    
     recognized  that final  regulations  are not  imminent,                                                                    
     and  because  the  majority of  commissioners  were  so                                                                    
     alarmed about the toxicity of  this class of chemicals,                                                                    
     the   CPSC    issued   a   non-binding    guidance   to                                                                    
     manufacturers,  retailers,  and   consumers  which  was                                                                    
     published in the Federal  Register which states, "based                                                                    
     on  the overwhelming  scientific evidence  presented to                                                                    
     the  Commission to  date,  the  Commission has  serious                                                                    
     concerns   regarding   the    potential   toxicity   of                                                                    
     organohalogen  flame  retardants,   and  the  risks  of                                                                    
     exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations."                                                                         
     The  guidance  went on  to  state  that the  Commission                                                                    
     requests,  but  does  not require,  that  manufacturers                                                                    
       liminate the use of these  chemicals" in the products                                                                    
     covered by the petition.                                                                                                   
     Since that  guidance was issued  in 2017, the  CPSC has                                                                    
     not moved forward to finalize  a binding prohibition on                                                                    
     the use  of these  chemicals, and it  is unclear  if it                                                                    
     will ever do so.                                                                                                           
     The  federal   EPA  also   has  authority   to  protect                                                                    
     consumers from  flame retardant  chemicals, but  it too                                                                    
     has  not  used  that  authority in  a  meaningful  way.                                                                    
     Nearly fifteen  years ago, EPA convinced  U.S. chemical                                                                    
     manufacturers   to   voluntarily  stop   the   domestic                                                                    
     production  of a  group of  flame  retardants known  as                                                                    
     PBDEs   ?  polybrominated   diphenyl  ethers.     These                                                                    
     chemicals are part of the  organohalogen class, a group                                                                    
     of  chemicals  for which  there  is  clear evidence  of                                                                    
     serious health impacts.                                                                                                    
     Other  than this  limited action,  EPA  has not  banned                                                                    
     domestic  production or  use of  any flame  retardants,                                                                    
     and it has  not banned the import  of consumer products                                                                    
     containing  any flame  retardants.  ... EPA  is now  on                                                                    
     track to take some  regulatory action under TSCA [Toxic                                                                    
     Substances   Control  Act]   with   respect  to   flame                                                                    
     retardants.  Specifically, EPA is  on track to regulate                                                                    
        it's unclear  if it  will  ban them  - two  specific                                                                    
     flame retardants  which are in a  special TSCA category                                                                    
     for  persistent  bioaccumulative  and  toxic,  or  PBT,                                                                    
     chemicals.  Under  the law EPA must  regulate these two                                                                    
     chemicals  to the  maximum  extent  practical to  avoid                                                                    
     exposure.  These ... two  flame retardants are decaBDE,                                                                    
     which  is one  of  the  PBTs, and  IpTPP,  which is  an                                                                    
     organophosphorus flame  retardant.  EPA is  expected to                                                                    
     release proposed risk management  rules in June of 2019                                                                    
     that  would be  finalized in  June  of 2020,  but as  I                                                                    
     indicated it's  unknown if EPA  ...  will  be proposing                                                                    
     bans on these substances, or  a less protective form of                                                                    
2:42:53 PM                                                                                                                    
     Under the TSCA statute,  no federal regulation of those                                                                    
     two  PBT substances  would have  preemptive effect  for                                                                    
     state  regulations  of  those  two chemicals.    So  if                                                                    
     Alaska goes  forward and EPA  goes forward ...  the two                                                                    
     laws can co-exist under TSCA.                                                                                              
     In  addition to  those two  PBT flame  retardants, just                                                                    
     two weeks  ago EPA  announced that  it is  initiating a                                                                    
     process to conduct risk  evaluations for three specific                                                                    
     flame  retardant  chemicals  under TSCA.    Under  this                                                                    
     statute,  if  EPA  finds  unreasonable  risk,  it  must                                                                    
     regulate those  chemicals and the regulations  could be                                                                    
     in the form of a  ban, though the regulation could also                                                                    
     be something less restrictive.   If EPA follows through                                                                    
     with the process that it  announced a few weeks ago and                                                                    
     finds  that  those  chemicals pose  unreasonable  risk,                                                                    
     which is not guaranteed by  any shot, it will likely be                                                                    
     at least six  years until a final rule  limiting use of                                                                    
     these  chemicals  [goes]  into  effect,  based  on  the                                                                    
     mandatory time  frames in TSCA,  and that  doesn't take                                                                    
     into  account   any  delays  that  might   result  from                                                                    
     And at  the end  of that  six years,  even in  the best                                                                    
     public  health scenario,  EPA  would  have banned  only                                                                    
     three  chemicals,  opening  the door  to  manufacturers                                                                    
     replacing   those  chemicals   with  nearly   identical                                                                    
     substances  with similar  toxicity profiles;  something                                                                    
     that Alaska  would address  through the  class approach                                                                    
     in HB 27, which I strongly support.                                                                                        
     Protecting  the  health  and safety  of  residents  has                                                                    
     always  been  one of  the  primary  functions of  state                                                                    
     government.   Consistent with this role,  several other                                                                    
     states  have adopted  bans  on the  use  of classes  of                                                                    
     flame retardant chemicals  in consumer products similar                                                                    
     to  HB  27.    None   of  these  state  laws  has  been                                                                    
     challenged in court.                                                                                                       
     Based  on my  experience and  familiarity with  federal                                                                    
     law  governing regulation  of toxic  chemicals, federal                                                                    
     law would  not prevent or impede  the implementation of                                                                    
     the  HB  27.   To  the  contrary,  as the  chair  noted                                                                    
     earlier, due  to the significant  gaps in  federal law,                                                                    
     it is  imperative that  Alaska adopt  HB 27  to protect                                                                    
     the  health of  the children  and firefighters  of this                                                                    
2:45:37 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN  asked how  many other states  have already                                                               
instituted  a  similar  ban  and   which  states  have  the  most                                                               
aggressive  restriction or  provide  the most  protection in  Ms.                                                               
Gartner's opinion.   She said her  concern is that HB  27 doesn't                                                               
go far enough  because she would like to see  the whole class and                                                               
in all products.                                                                                                                
MS.  GARTNER  replied  that  many states  have  adopted  bans  on                                                               
particular  chemicals in  particular products.   The  states that                                                               
now  go the  farthest are  California, Maine,  Rhode Island,  and                                                               
Washington state.   She said  she would provide a  description of                                                               
the legislation  from each of those  states in written form.   To                                                               
date,  she  added, none  of  the  states  have banned  all  flame                                                               
retardants  in all  consumer  products.   She said  HB  27 is  an                                                               
aggressive first  step to protect children  and firefighters, and                                                               
while  she  agrees  it  would  be  better  if  it  addressed  all                                                               
products, it  goes quite far and  farther than some of  the other                                                               
states have  gone.  The  Rhode Island bill only  covers furniture                                                               
and  mattresses, she  noted, and  she further  stated her  belief                                                               
that the Maine bill only covers furniture.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   HANNAN  requested   that   when  preparing   the                                                               
aforementioned  descriptions  Ms.  Gartner  also  cross-reference                                                               
whether  those   states  passing   the  strong  laws   had  major                                                               
firefighter lawsuits  and liability.  She  offered her assumption                                                               
that liability created from firefighters  suffering high rates of                                                               
cancer may have driven some  states to make these considerations.                                                               
She said  Alaska has  had some  individual cases,  but not  yet a                                                               
class action lawsuit.                                                                                                           
MS. GARTNER agreed to do so.                                                                                                    
2:48:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER inquired  whether  the  buyer beware  is                                                               
mostly  overseas or  still a  problem from  manufacturers in  the                                                               
Lower 48.   He surmised there  might be enough protection  in the                                                               
aforementioned  states,   which  are  predominantly   the  states                                                               
MS. GARTNER responded she is unsure  she has the data to speak to                                                               
that definitively, but she does know  that many of these kinds of                                                               
children's products, both with and  without flame retardants, are                                                               
manufactured overseas.                                                                                                          
2:50:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  pointed out  that the  next witness,  Sara Hannon,                                                               
has  the  same  name  as Representative  Sara  Hannan  [different                                                               
spelling of last name].                                                                                                         
SARA HANNON,  Spokesperson, Alaska Nurses  Association, testified                                                               
in support  of HB 27.   She said the  ill effects of  exposure to                                                               
chemical flame retardants are well  documented in research.  They                                                               
are  found  widely in  the  home  environment, commonly  used  in                                                               
children's  products, carpeting,  and  home  furniture.   Harmful                                                               
impacts,  she  continued,   include  developmental  disabilities,                                                               
thyroid  function   impact,  miscarriages,  birth   defects,  and                                                               
cancer.    She related  that  a  national bio-monitoring  program                                                               
conducted  by  the Centers  for  Disease  Control and  Prevention                                                               
(CDC) found  that 97  percent of  the people  living in  the U.S.                                                               
have  measurable quantities  of flame  retardant in  their blood.                                                               
This persistent  exposure contaminates fish and  wildlife as well                                                               
as  people,  she added,  and  simply  put, flame  retardants  are                                                               
harmful to human health and the environment.                                                                                    
MS. HANNON pointed out that birth  defects in Alaska are twice as                                                               
high as  the U.S.  as a  whole and Alaska  Native infants  have a                                                               
doubled risk.  She said HB  27 would protect children's health by                                                               
preventing  exposure to  known toxic  chemicals and  would be  an                                                               
opportunity  to  make  a  difference  to  future  generations  in                                                               
Alaska's communities.   The more scientists  look, she continued,                                                               
the more  they find negative impacts  even at very low  levels of                                                               
exposure to  toxic chemical.   Prenatal  exposure to  these toxic                                                               
chemicals at a level commonly  found in households has been shown                                                               
to  be  associated  with adverse  neurodevelopmental  effects  in                                                               
young  children.    Safer economically  viable  alternatives  are                                                               
available, she added,  which means that many  Alaskans won't have                                                               
to  sacrifice their  health and  Alaska will  be a  healthier and                                                               
less toxic place  to live to raise  a family.  She  said both she                                                               
and  the Alaska  Nurses Association  strongly support  HB 27  and                                                               
urge that it be passed this legislative session.                                                                                
2:53:45 PM                                                                                                                    
MAUREEN  SWANSON, Learning  Disabilities Association  of America,                                                               
on  behalf of  the Learning  Disabilities Association  of Alaska,                                                               
based in Juneau, testified in support  of HB 27.  She paraphrased                                                               
from  the  following   written  testimony  [original  punctuation                                                               
     The Learning  Disabilities Association [LDA]  of Alaska                                                                    
     strongly  supports HB  27, the  Toxic-Free Firefighters                                                                    
     and Children  Act.  We  are pleased that this  bill has                                                                    
     been strengthened  to address four categories  of toxic                                                                    
     flame  retardants  - organohalogen,  organophosphorous,                                                                    
     organonitrogen  and  nanoscale      that  can  threaten                                                                    
     children's  health and  brain development.   Addressing                                                                    
     all four categories of  flame retardant chemicals helps                                                                    
     to ensure  that product makers cannot  remove one toxic                                                                    
     chemical only to replace it with another.                                                                                  
     LDA of  Alaska is headquartered in  Juneau and directed                                                                    
     by  Alison and  Larry Talley,  with their  son Matthew.                                                                    
     Larry was  a volunteer  fire fighter  in Juneau  for 12                                                                    
     years.  He and Alison  are parents of three young adult                                                                    
     children, two  of whom have problems  with learning and                                                                    
     One  in  six  children  in  the  United  States  has  a                                                                    
     reported    learning   or    developmental   disability                                                                    
     including   autism,  attention   deficit  hyperactivity                                                                    
     disorder, and other  learning and developmental delays.                                                                    
     Learning and developmental  disabilities persist   with                                                                    
     lasting impacts on children, families  and society.  On                                                                    
     average,  it costs  twice as  much to  educate a  child                                                                    
     with  a  learning  or developmental  disability  as  to                                                                    
     educate a child without a disability.                                                                                      
     Flame retardant  chemicals are found in  pregnant women                                                                    
     and  in  newborn babies.    These  chemicals cross  the                                                                    
     placenta  to the  fetus and  are detected  in umbilical                                                                    
     cord blood and in breast milk.                                                                                             
     Flame   retardants  migrate   from  products   such  as                                                                    
     furniture,   baby   and    children's   products,   and                                                                    
     mattresses  into   household  dust.     The   U.S.  EPA                                                                    
     estimates that  children ages 15   ingest approximately                                                                    
     four  to  five times  more  dust  than adults.    Flame                                                                    
     retardants in  house dust get  on children's  hands and                                                                    
     objects  such as  toys, which  they then  put in  their                                                                    
     mouths.   In  Alaska, we  spend a  lot of  time indoors                                                                    
     during the  long winters, so  our children may  be more                                                                    
     highly  exposed   to  toxic  chemicals  in   dust  than                                                                    
     children in other parts of the country.                                                                                    
     The developing brain, in utero  and early childhood, is                                                                    
     extremely vulnerable  to harm  from even low  levels of                                                                    
     toxic  chemicals.   The  National  Academy of  Sciences                                                                    
     states  that  environmental  factors,  including  toxic                                                                    
     chemicals,  contribute to  more than  a quarter  of all                                                                    
     learning   and  developmental   disabilities  in   U.S.                                                                    
     In July  2016, leading  scientific and  medical experts                                                                    
     published a  statement naming PBDE flame  retardants as                                                                    
     examples  of   toxic  chemicals  that   are  increasing                                                                    
     children's  risks   for  neurodevelopmental  disorders,                                                                    
     including     ADHD     [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity                                                                    
     Disorder],  learning  disabilities  and  autism.    The                                                                    
     statement also  outlines the scientists'  concerns with                                                                    
     flame  retardants that  are replacing  PBDEs.   Some of                                                                    
     the  replacement   flame  retardants  are   similar  in                                                                    
     structure  to PBDEs  or to  organophosphate pesticides,                                                                    
     and   emerging  evidence   shows  they   are  similarly                                                                    
     In   2015  researchers   with  the   Endocrine  Society                                                                    
     concluded  that PBDE  exposure interferes  with thyroid                                                                    
     hormone    and   contributes    to   neurodevelopmental                                                                    
     disorders.     Recent  studies  of   halogenated  flame                                                                    
     retardants   that  have   replaced  PBDEs   show  these                                                                    
     chemicals also  can interfere with thyroid  hormone and                                                                    
     alter brain development.                                                                                                   
     In September  2017, the  U.S. Consumer  Products Safety                                                                    
     Commission  (CPSC)   issued  a  landmark   ruling  that                                                                    
     recognized  the  need  to  protect  people,  especially                                                                    
     pregnant women  and children, from the  entire class of                                                                    
     halogenated flame retardants.   CPSC banned the sale or                                                                    
     import  of furniture,  mattresses, children's  products                                                                    
     and   electronics  enclosures   if  they   contain  any                                                                    
     halogenated flame retardants.                                                                                              
     The  Commission  stated,   "The  known  adverse  health                                                                    
     effects   of   these   chemicals   include?neurological                                                                    
     impacts, (such  as) decreased IQ in  children, impaired                                                                    
     memory, learning  deficits, altered motor  behavior and                                                                    
     hyperactivity" and  concluded, "These chemicals  have a                                                                    
     disproportionately    negative    health   effect    on                                                                    
     vulnerable populations, including children.                                                                                
     Organophosphate flame retardants  (OPFRs) such as TDCPP                                                                    
     and   TPP,   offer   another   example   of   dangerous                                                                    
     "replacement"    flame   retardants.       OPFRs    are                                                                    
     structurally similar  to the  organophosphate pesticide                                                                    
     chlorpyrifos, which  can impair brain  development, and                                                                    
     increase  children's risks  for learning  and attention                                                                    
     disorders.   Laboratory  studies  of  OPFRs have  shown                                                                    
     neurobehavioral  toxicity, including  hyperactivity and                                                                    
     impaired exploratory  behavior.   The effects  of OPFRs                                                                    
     such as  TDCPP on  brain development and  behavior, are                                                                    
     observed  at  the  same  doses  at  which  chlorpyrifos                                                                    
     affects brain development and behavior.                                                                                    
     It is  important to understand  that even  tiny amounts                                                                    
     of these  toxic chemicals can affect  children's brains                                                                    
       at the level of  parts per billion.  Researchers have                                                                    
     identified "critical  windows of  vulnerability" during                                                                    
     fetal development  and early childhood, when  the brain                                                                    
     is  especially at  risk from  toxic chemicals,  even at                                                                    
     extremely low exposure levels.                                                                                             
     Consider   chemicals  that   are   designed  to   alter                                                                    
     behavior,  like  Ritalin.     The  prescribed  dose  of                                                                    
     Ritalin  for  a child  with  ADHD  affects the  child's                                                                    
     brain at  about the  same level as  the level  of flame                                                                    
     retardants  found in  children.    Both the  prescribed                                                                    
     behavior-altering chemical, Ritalin,  and the behavior-                                                                    
     altering toxic flame retardant  chemicals are active in                                                                    
     the  child's body  and  brain at  levels  of parts  per                                                                    
     The scientific evidence is clear.   Beginning in utero,                                                                    
     children   are  regularly   exposed   to  toxic   flame                                                                    
     retardants,  in part  because  these chemicals  migrate                                                                    
     from products into house dust  and are ingested.  These                                                                    
     flame  retardant  chemicals  are active  in  children's                                                                    
     bodies  at levels  that can  disrupt brain  development                                                                    
     and  function.   The resulting  harm to  our children's                                                                    
     minds can be permanent.                                                                                                    
     LDA of Alaska  urges the House to adopt  the Toxic Free                                                                    
     Fire-Fighters  and Children  Act,  to protect  Alaska's                                                                    
     vulnerable   youngest   citizens   from   toxic   flame                                                                    
     retardants that  put them at  higher risk  for problems                                                                    
     with learning, attention and behavior.                                                                                     
MS. SWANSON, in response to  Co-Chair Tarr, stated she would                                                                    
be providing her  testimony in writing and  that it contains                                                                    
the references to the studies she cited.                                                                                        
3:01:43 PMS                                                                                                                   
DAVE CAVITT,  Owner, Furniture Enterprises of  Alaska, Inc.,                                                                    
testified  regarding HB  27 and  offered a  suggestion.   He                                                                    
stated  he  owns  13  furniture stores  in  Alaska  and  his                                                                    
company is  100 percent  Alaska based.   He said  he checked                                                                    
with all of the manufacturers  that he carries in his stores                                                                    
and none  use flame retardants  in the manufacture  of their                                                                    
products, including  the items from China,  Vietnam, Mexico,                                                                    
and the  U.S.   Of the  upholstery manufacturers,  he added,                                                                    
one believed it  was compliant but couldn't certify  it.  He                                                                    
noted  that all  of  the products  his  company carries  are                                                                    
already labeled with  the California standards.   He said it                                                                    
is important to  him as a local person that  his company can                                                                    
comply with  California's standard  because, as stated  by a                                                                    
prior  witness,   California  has   one  of   the  strongest                                                                    
standards,  if  not  the  strongest,  in  the  nation.    He                                                                    
suggested that  furniture and  mattresses be  separated from                                                                    
the current  bill, with that  bill mandating  the California                                                                    
standard  or the  federal standard,  whichever is  stronger.                                                                    
He  posited that  all the  manufacturers would  move to  the                                                                    
California standard because  of California's population size                                                                    
and [his company] would be able to comply with that.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR  Tarr urged  Mr. Cavitt  to contact  her office  to                                                                    
explore his idea further.                                                                                                       
MR. CAVITT agreed to do so.                                                                                                     
3:04:03 PM                                                                                                                    
EMILY   NEENAN,  Director,   Alaska  Government   Relations,                                                                    
American  Cancer  Society  Cancer Action  Network  (ACSCAN),                                                                    
testified  in support  of HB  27.   She stated  that primary                                                                    
prevention is a  key focus of her organization.   While much                                                                    
is  heard from  her organization  about tobacco  prevention,                                                                    
nutrition,  and physical  activity, she  continued, it  also                                                                    
includes   minimizing  cancers   from  exposures   to  toxic                                                                    
substances such as in HB  27.  Regarding an earlier question                                                                    
from Representative  Rauscher, she stated that  2007 was the                                                                    
year  Alaska passed  the  self-extinguishing cigarette  law.                                                                    
Alaska was  the sixth or seventh  state in the nation  to do                                                                    
that and  by 2014  all states  had that law  in place.   She                                                                    
pointed out that  it wasn't a problem for Alaska  to do that                                                                    
because there were  a number of big states    New York being                                                                    
the  first one  to do  so    and manufacturers  were already                                                                    
creating those  products for  the larger  population states.                                                                    
She maintained  the same would  be true  in regard to  HB 27                                                                    
and this is the trend that ACSCAN sees moving forward.                                                                          
[HB 27 was held over and public testimony was kept open.]                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 27 Sponsor Statement.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19.PDF HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19Sectional Analysis.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Fiscal Note - Dept of Law 3.29.19.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - CDC - Skin Exposures and Effects.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Expert Testimony Vytenis Babrauskas.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Federal Register CPSC 9.28.17.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Flame Retardants - NIH Fact Sheet July 2016.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Knoblauch article 1.24.18.pdf HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Leg Research on FF health costs.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - School Nurses 3.12.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from ACS CAN AK 2.21.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support from Firefighters 4.2.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Past Support re Flame Retardants in AK.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB27 Supporting Document - Past Support re Flame Retardants in AK.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - GCDSE 4.1.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3 Sponsor Statement 3.12.2019.pdf HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB 3 Ver M 3.12.2019.pdf HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB 3 Ver A 3.12.2019.pdf HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB 3 DOR Fiscal Note.pdf HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB3 DNR Fiscal Note.pdf HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB 3 Explanation of Changes 3.12.2019.pdf HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB 3
HB 27 Flame Retardants Slide Presentation 4.2.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - American Chemistry Council Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association Letter of Opposition 4.2.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM
HB27 Supporting Document - Consumer Technology Association Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM