Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/05/1997 01:48 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 41 ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH/SAFETY AUDITS
AL DWYER , Director of the Division of Labor Standards and Safety,
Department of Labor (DOL) read the following from a letter from
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mr. Greg Watchman:
Employers' privilege and immunities proposed in SB 41 would greatly
limit Alaska's authority to investigate accidents and illnesses in
the workplace, document their cases, and enforce job safety and
health standards. This bill would significantly damage the
credibility and effectiveness of Alaska's enforcement program. As
you know, Congress has required the states with OSHA-approved state
plans to maintain an occupational safety and health program which
is at least as effective as the federal. Enactment of such a
provision by the state would seriously undermine the continued
approvability of Alaska's 18E Occupational Safety and Health
Program and may result in the withdrawal of federal approval and
funding for the Alaska program.
SEE PAGES 17 - FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
BETH KERTTULA , Assistant Attorney General, testified on Amendment
will have on tariff cases. First, if the bill is amended to extend
the privilege under Amendment 8, it will jeopardize tariff cases
which could cost the state millions of dollars.
MS. KERTULLA outlined the tariff rate procedure as follows. Under
Alaska's royalty and production tax statutes, the state pays one-
quarter of the tariff. That calculation includes pipeline
operation costs through reduced revenues to the state. The state
has the right to challenge imprudent costs and technical errors
under the TAPS settlement agreement. In the 1995 tariff case, the
state is challenging over $300 million worth of remediation costs
to the pipeline's electrical systems, as-built drawings, and
business management systems because it believes the carriers did
not act reasonably in maintaining those systems. The vast majority
of the evidence in that case came from audits. If the state had
not had access to those audits, its ability to bring the case would
have been severely curtailed. The estimated cost of conducting the
audits was $25 million. Amendment 8 would grant a privilege to
anything that was not "necessary" to determine pipeline rates,
tariffs, or charges. Use of the imprudent standard requires review
of all pipeline costs to determine which are justified and in
normal discovery, one is allowed to get information that leads to
relevant information. Furthermore, most audits are mixed between
fact and analysis, making the two difficult to separate.
Therefore, Amendment 8 is either meaningless, because audit
information is truly necessary to determine rates, or harmful if
the intent is to limit the ability of the state to receive
information related to pipeline management just because that
information is in an audit. Amendment 8, in conjunction with the
fact the bill was previously amended to not allow the state to
review objective facts in audits, is a threat to the state properly
bringing TAPS tariff cases.
Regarding the immunity provision, MS. KERTTULA noted because of the
bill's limitations to the definition of "penalty," it appears the
sponsor may not have intended immunity to apply to tariff cases,
however the definition states the penalty means administrative or
civil sanctions. It is possible an argument could be made that an
APUC order could be viewed as an administrative sanction. More
problematic on the immunity point is the fact that there are tariff
related cases that can be brought civilly, instead of
administratively. Civil penalties are available for egregious
behavior. If immunity is limited in tariff cases, the right of
the state to receive civil penalties in penalties would cease.
MS. KERTTULA summarized at best, Amendment 8 confuses what
information the state will be able to receive to bring tariff cases
and will hamstring the Department of Law. She requested the
committee add the tariff exception back to the immunity clause.
Number 429
SENATOR MILLER moved the adoption of Amendment 8. SENATOR ELLIS
objected to the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Kerttula if she disagrees with Senator
Leman's statement that Amendment 8 will allow review of only those
parts of an audit report necessary to assist in determining rates,
tariffs, fares or charges to be nonprivileged. MS. KERTTULA felt
the problem lies in the fact the language could be interpreted very
restrictively and allow disclosure to determine appropriate tariff
rates, but not imprudence. In the 1995 case, all of the costs used
to calculate the tariff included the costs of managing the
pipeline, which can be very broad.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the original intent of reviewing some audit
results was not for TAPS regulation for purposes of revenue, but to
ensure that environmental safety concerns, such as corrosion, were
addressed. DEC would have jurisdiction over those matters. MS.
KERTTULA agreed that might have been the primary focus of those
audits, but repeated those problems do relate back to the rates.
Number 455
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented if an audit discloses pipe corrosion and
DEC requires three miles of pipe to be replaced, the repair cost
then gets calculated into the operation costs of the facility which
is paid for by the people of the state. MS. KERTTULA agreed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated it appears all Amendment 8 would protect is
disclosure of audits conducted for ancillary purposes that may, or
may not, get built into the tariff someday. For example, if a
carrier determined, through a self-audit, it did not have
appropriate monitoring equipment for gas releases and was in
violation of the Clean Air Act, parts of the self-audit would be
available to the Department of Law for rate-fixing aspects, but not
for the penal aspect. MS. KERTTULA was unsure how Amendment 8
would be interpreted because of the inclusion of the word
"necessary."
MS. KERTTULA explained the state gets charged up front, through a
reduction to production in the state's royalty tax return. The
department gets to look at the charge once it has been assessed.
In the 1995 electrical code case, the tariff suddenly took a jump,
so the Department of Law had to work back to determine the cost of
the increase: in this case it had to review audits, including self-
audits, that explained what had occurred to cause the cost
increase. The self-audits were a mix of facts and analysis. She
cautioned without access to those types of audits, millions of
dollars to the state could be jeopardized.
Number 492
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked whether millions of dollars of revenue, or of
costs to the state, would be jeopardized. MS. KERTTULA responded
at this point, it is millions of dollars the state would have lost
in royalty and production taxes. The state will be reimbursed if
it wins the case.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted Ms. Kerttula was making the assumption the
state would not have its own audit report available. MS. KERTTULA
replied the Department of Law might not have access to the
company's audit, if Amendment 8 is enacted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented the Senate Finance Committee can more
adequately address that aspect.
SENATOR ELLIS maintained his objection to adopt Amendment 8. The
motion carried with Senators Miller, Parnell and Taylor voting
"yea," and Senator Ellis voting "nay."
Number 510
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt a packet of amendments submitted by
the Administration. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR objected and asked Senator
Ellis to describe each one individually.
SENATOR ELLIS explained Amendment 25 deletes the words "health and
safety" following the word "environmental" throughout the bill.
JANICE ADAIR , Director of Environmental Quality, DEC, testified in
support of Amendment 25 because she believes although SB 41 works
well for DEC, it does not work well for the Department of Labor.
SENATOR LEMAN believed SB 41 will help employers come into
compliance with health and safety laws as well as environmental
laws.
Amendment 25 was adopted with Senators Ellis, Miller, Parnell, and
Pearce voting "yea," and Senator Taylor voting "nay."
TAPE 97-15, SIDE B
SENATOR ELLIS explained Amendment 26 removes references to the
Departments of Labor and Health and Social Services but asked that
Amendment 26 be reconstructed to say ", the Department of Labor,"
since the committee passed Amendment 7 at a previous meeting which
deleted references to the Department of Health and Social Services
from the bill.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the
Department of Labor, clarified Amendment 25 deleted all references
to health and safety audits; Amendment 26 would conform by removing
references to the Department of Labor.
There being no objection to Amendment 26, it was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER objected to Amendment 27.
MARIE SANSONE explained under SB 41, the owner/operator who is
claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing that the
privilege applies and contains a category of information that is
excepted from the privilege requirements under SB 41. These
exceptions are very similar to what is contained in evidence rules
regarding attorney/client privileges or doctor/patient privileges.
For example, if the privilege is asserted for a criminal or
fraudulent purpose, there would be an exception to the privilege.
This recognizes that a privilege should not be used to further
criminal or fraudulent acts. Amendment 27 deals with the mechanics
of proving that an exception applies. SB 41 requires the party
seeking disclosure come forward and prove an exception applies but
without access to the audit information, it would be very difficult
to prove. Amendment 27 allows the person seeking disclosure to
make a prima facie case that the exception applies, using
nonprivileged information to make that showing. At that point, the
party maintaining privilege would be required to show that the
exception should not apply. She discussed numerous court cases
which recognize the notion of the prima facie showing to establish
exceptions to the privilege.
SENATOR MILLER said his concern with Amendment 27 is the assumption
that the party is guilty unless it can prove itself innocent. He
questioned whether the amendment would shift the burden from the
state to the company to prove why it should not have privilege.
MS. ADAIR explained a private third party may believe it has been
harmed by an action. That party would be required to get
independent evidence to convince a judge or hearing officer to set
the privilege exception aside so that the party could review the
privileged documentation to make a case. Without Amendment 27, SB
41 requires the party to demonstrate something it has no way to
demonstrate because the documentation is privileged. She believes
the amendment does not shift the burden, but levels the way it is
applied.
Number 501
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned whether a whistleblower could establish
a prima facie case based on the evidence he/she was fired for
whistleblowing under Amendment 27 and then use self-audit
information to defend his/her re-employment.
MS. SANSONE felt in such a case, the employer may want to bring the
self-audit forward if it wished to prove the whistleblower was
sabotaging the company by intentional wrongdoing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was thinking of a situation in which the
whistleblower was peripherally involved in sabotage with other
employees but uses his/her whistleblower status to bring a wrongful
termination suit. MS. SANSONE believed judges have quite an array
of means to protect the information in such a case. The judge
could rule that part of the information is relevant to the
whistleblower case but not for other purposes. She believed the
bill would give the judge the appropriate latitude to craft a
protective order so that the information cannot be misused.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what standard for the burden of proof is used
for parties wishing to seek this information. He added Amendment
27 would obviously weaken the current standard by making it a prima
facie case. MS. SANSONE described two Alaska Supreme Court
decisions that set out very good procedures for dealing with
privileged information. In 1974, the United Service Automobile
Association v. Worley decision defined what is a prima facie case
for purposes of trying to gain access to privileged information.
It is defined as the evidence that would sufficiently support a
showing of a crime or fraud if all contrary evidence is
disregarded. The burden of proof does not change in that scenario;
the question becomes how much of a burden does one have to meet, or
does one ever get to look at the privileged information in order to
show that the privilege does not apply. To show that the privilege
does not apply without access would be very hard, if not
impossible, in certain circumstances. Where it would be possible,
under the Central Construction case, the Court recognized that a
trial judge can choose to not have an in-camera review if the
proceeding established that enough evidence is available to tie the
case up.
Number 416
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he asked the question because he thought a
standard for access to privileged documents exists. He felt
Amendment 27 appears to be a reduction in the burden upon the
person asking for the key to the vault. MS. SANSONE repeated the
Department of Law's concern and reason for the suggested amendment
was that SB 41 does not allow for a party to have access to the
privileged material at any time, to meet their burden of showing
that it did not apply. The Department of Law is trying to
establish a level at which one could gain access to that
information in order to prove the exception.
SENATOR PARNELL referred to back-up material provided by Ms.
Sansone and read the following.
The Alaska Supreme Court also follows this approach. In Sloan
v. Jefferson, 758 P.2d 81, 83 (Alaska 1988), the court
recognized that the burden of proof generally falls upon the
party asserting a fact, particularly where that party controls
the evidence bearing upon that fact.
He asked, in this kind of a proceeding, for an example of a fact
being asserted by the owner/operator.
MS. ADAIR replied an example would be that the owner/operator
promptly initiated the necessary action to correct a violation.
SENATOR MILLER maintained his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 27. The motion failed with Senator Ellis voting "yea,"
and Senators Miller, Parnell, Pearce and Taylor voting "nay."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced Amendment 28 was up for discussion.
Number 374
MS. ADAIR advised Amendment 28 is a conforming amendment. SENATOR
LEMAN agreed Amendment 28 provides a necessary technical change.
There was no objection to Amendment 28, therefore it was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified Amendment 29 is numbered #16 in packets,
and that Senator Ellis did not wish to offer #15.
MS. ADAIR informed the committee Amendment 29 reinstates language
that was contained in prior versions of SB 41 and may have been
inadvertently omitted. Amendment 29 pertains to an exception to
immunity if the disclosure is in a proceeding relating to pipeline
rates, tariffs, fares, or procedures.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he recommends Amendment 29 not be adopted
because an exception already exists under the privilege section. He
explained immunity is only granted regarding violations of
environmental laws, and not underpayment of tariffs.
Number 355
MS. KERTTULA stated an APUC order is a state administrative order.
Outside of the administrative realm, the state can bring civil
cases where penalties are available, if there were particularly
egregious facts behind a tariff case. If self-audits are immune,
the state will be unable to recover in APUC cases, as well as in
civil complaints and anti-trust cases. Regarding the privilege
argument, environmental audits can contain information necessary
for tariff cases and rate-making to determine if money was
imprudently spent. If that information is privileged, the state
will never know if the rate charged was correct.
SENATOR PEARCE asked how this provision works in Texas with the
Texas Railroad and its utilities. SENATOR LEMAN replied
Representative Warren Chisolm told him that out of 400 audits
conducted, none of the potential problems brought forward to this
committee have occurred in Texas.
Number 325
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR felt only certain audit information is of necessity
to the Department of Law for rate-setting. He believes whichever
department sets the rates would like to cooperate with DEC on audit
information that could be used to file charges.
MS. KERTTULA responded the Department of Law's concern is truly for
the 25 percent the state pays for the transportation of our oil.
In the last two years, on the 1995 case, the Department of Law was
faced with precisely this kind of information as evidence of the
problem. Without it, the Department of Law could not have brought
the case. Even if the Department of Law could have paid $25
million to conduct those audits, it might not have been able to get
to it under SB 41's immunity section. MS. ADAIR added DEC would be
happy to offer an amendment prohibiting it from getting the tariff
setting information.
Objection was maintained to the adoption of Amendment 29. The
motion to adopt Amendment 29 failed with Senators Pearce, Miller,
Parnell, and Taylor voting "nay," and Senator Ellis voting "yea."
Number 277
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced Amendment 30 was before the committee.
MS. ADAIR commented because of discomfort with the specific
language, DEC would like to propose Amendment 30 as a conceptual
amendment. The purpose for the amendment is to assure that if SB
41 is not crafted to meet all of EPA's standards, the state not
lose primacy of either the Clean Air Act program or the Drinking
Water program. The amendment provides that if DEC is notified by
EPA that primacy withdrawal has begun, then the statutory
provisions of SB 41 be set aside for the particular program.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR believed Amendment 30 to be unconstitutional
because it would require a precedent be set by another entity's
actions.
SENATOR ELLIS withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 30. There was
no objection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced Amendment 31 was before the committee.
MS. ADAIR explained Amendment 31 deletes the language, `To fully
implement the privilege and immunity established under AS
09.25.450-09.25.490, the term "environmental or health and safety
law" shall be construed broadly.' DEC sees no reason to "broadly
construe" its statutes, as well as municipal ordinances, which are
covered under SB 41. The phrase lends uncertainty to the bill.
Number 198
SENATOR PARNELL asked Ms. Adair what laws would then apply if that
section is deleted. MS. ADAIR responded SB 41 would apply to Title
46 which DEC implements, but she was unclear how municipal
ordinances might be affected. She added Amendment 31 clarifies SB
41 would not impact the Underground Injection Control Program; an
EPA-delegated program run by the Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission in Alaska. That program does fall under Title 46 but is
not a DEC law.
SENATOR PARNELL expressed reluctance to narrow the language without
a clear understanding of the impact. MS. ADAIR thought that
language, when included in SB 41, was directed to DEC laws.
SENATOR MILLER cautioned although the Legislature may intend SB 41
to apply to all environmental laws, the Judicial Branch could
interpret it more narrowly without the "construed broadly" phrase.
SENATOR PARNELL asked whether operator/owners are making any
voluntarily disclosures of violations under federal law to state
agencies. MS. ADAIR replied affirmatively. SENATOR PARNELL asked
if SB 41 is limited to Title 46, whether those privileges and
immunities would not attach to violations of federal law. MS.
ADAIR replied they would continue to attach as far as our state
laws are concerned that are implementing federal laws but they
would not apply in a federal proceeding.
Number 113
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the major producers of the oil industry
would like to narrow the scope of the bill so that the UIC Program
is not impacted by SB 41. MS. ADAIR said the oil industry has not
indicated whether it supports the amendment one way or another, but
it has expressed concern about SB 41 applying to that program. She
also corrected herself, and noted the UIC Program is not in Title
46.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated he shares Senator Miller's concern that the
phrase "broadly construed" speaks to state agencies and the courts,
and, as a matter of legislative interpretation, they will always
attempt to narrowly construe a grant of immunity unless
specifically stated.
MS. SANSONE thought by defining the word "department" to mean DEC
in SB 41, if SB 41 were to apply to the UIC Program under the
Department of Administration, the term "broadly construed" would
set up a schism in the bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed and asked
Senator Leman to review that issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted objection was maintained to the adoption of
Amendment 31. The motion failed with Senator Ellis voting "yea,"
and Senators Pearce, Parnell, Miller and Taylor voting "nay."
The committee took up Amendment 32. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified the
amendment would read:
Page 5, line 24:
Following "AS 09.24.450 for":
Insert: "objective facts and"
MS. ADAIR explained with the adoption of Amendment 32, page 5,
lines 23 and 24 would read:
Sec. 09.25.460. Nonprivileged materials. (a) There is
no privilege under AS 09.25.450 for objective facts and
for that part of an audit report that contains the
following:
TAPE 97-16, SIDE B
SENATOR MILLER maintained his objection to adoption of Amendment
32. SENATOR PARNELL asked for a description of Amendment 32.
MARIE SANSONE explained the self-audit privilege is very similar to
a privilege against self-incrimination. A person cannot be forced
to incriminate him/herself, but the evidence of a crime is not
privileged. SENATOR PARNELL noted the person would not have to
disclose the evidence and asked why a company should. MS. SANSONE
responded the defendant would have to turn over the evidence, i.e.
O.J. Simpson had to turn over the shoes and glove, etc. She
explained in this amendment, the term "objective" was used to try
to make a distinction between something that might be subjective or
opinion, and something that might be an objective fact. The EPA's
policy does not recognize the privilege, partially because the
underlying facts are necessary to determine whether the corrective
actions have been taken. One can assure the privileges and
immunities are not being abused only with the objective facts.
Number 097
SENATOR MILLER stated he believes the underlying concept of the
bill is to provide incentive for businesses to determine and fix
problems. If, under SB 41, the objective facts of the
determination are not privileged and can be used against the
company, no incentive exists.
MS. ADAIR explained if a company conducted tests on a stream
because it was orange and smelly, the fact the stream turned orange
would not be privileged, but the test results would be.
SENATOR MILLER asked if DEC got the information, it would not be
privileged. MS. ADAIR said that was correct.
SENATOR LEMAN said he opposed the amendment.
Amendment 32 failed with Senators Pearce, Miller, Parnell and
Taylor voting "nay," and Senator Ellis voting "yea."
SENATOR LEMAN clarified SB 41 will not apply to information that is
required to be disclosed by permit so the previous example would
not apply.
Number 141
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted Amendment 33 was before the committee.
SENATOR PARNELL objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. ADAIR stated DEC considers Amendment 33 to be a technical
amendment that would allow the court to require disclosure if,
after an in-camera review, the court found that the information for
which the privilege is claimed is evidence of a violation that
caused substantial injury.
Amendment 33 failed with Senators Miller, Parnell, Pearce, and
Taylor voting "nay," and Senator Ellis voting "yea."
The committee took up Amendment 34. MS. ADAIR explained SB 41 says
if immunity is not granted, there are certain actions that mitigate
any penalty. The first action is the voluntariness of the
disclosure. DEC finds that awkward since the basic premise of SB
41 is voluntary disclosure. DEC believes what was intended is
good-faith actions of the owner/operator in disclosing the
violations. Amendment 34 uses that language. There being no
objection to Amendment 34, it was adopted.
The committee took up Amendment 35. MS. ADAIR noted the amendment
uses the word "contained" in reference to material in an audit
report, rather than material "described" in an audit report. The
word "contained" is broader and will include appendices or other
documents that are a part of the audit. Also, the word
"implementation" has been changed to "findings, conclusions, and
recommendations" for the purpose of clarity. There being no
objection to Amendment 35, it was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 41(JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations. The motion carried with Senators Taylor, Pearce,
Miller, and Parnell voting "yea," and Senator Ellis voting "nay."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
AMENDMENT #8
Page 6, lines 15-16:
Reword subsection (b) as follows:
The parts of an audit report that consist of information
necessary to determine pipeline rates, tariffs, fares, or
charges are not privileged and are admissible as evidence and
subject to discovery in a proceeding relating to pipeline
rates, tariffs, fares, or charges. [AN AUDIT REPORT IS NOT
PRIVILEGED AND IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND SUBJECT TO
DISCOVERY IN A PROCEEDING RELATING TO PIPELINE RATES, TARIFFS,
FARES OR CHARGES.]
AMENDMENT #25
Page 1, line l:
Following "environmental audits":
Delete "and health and safety audits"
Page 1, line 5:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 1, line 8:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 1, line 13:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 2:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 7:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 12:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 14:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 20:
Following "environmental":
Delete "and health and safety"
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 4, line 16:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 4, line 19:
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 4, lines 26-27:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 5, line 28:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 5, line 29:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 6, lines 4-5:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 6, line 8:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 6, line 10:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 6, line 26:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 7, line 7:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 7, lines 24-25:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 8, lines 21-22
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 9, line 16:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 9, line 22:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 9, lines 26-27:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 10, line 11:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 10, line 27:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 11, lines 2-4:
Following "Conservation":
Delete ", the Department of Labor, and the Department of
Health and Social Services, as appropriate"
Page 11, line 5:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 11, line 14:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 11, line 16:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 11, lines 17-18:
Following "environmental":
Delete "or occupational health and safety"
Page 11, line 30:
Following "environmental"
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 12, line 2:
Following "environmental"
Delete "or health and safety"
Page 12, line 5:
Following "environmental"
Delete "or health and safety"
AMENDMENT 26
Page 11, lines 2-4:
Following "Environmental Conservation":
Delete ", the Department of Labor"
AMENDMENT 27
Page 7, lines 3-4:
Following "under":
Delete all material.
Insert: "(a)(1) - (a)(4) of this section has the burden of
establishing a prima facie case that the exception applies.
(c) A party seeking disclosure under (a)(5) of this section
has the burden of establishing that the exception applies."
AMENDMENT 28
Page 8, line 16:
Following "under":
Delete: "an agreement"
Insert: "a written claim of confidentiality"
AMENDMENT 29
Page 9, line 21:
Insert a new subsection as follows and renumber all
subsections accordingly:
"(b) There is no immunity under AS 09.25.475 if the
disclosure is in a proceeding relating to pipeline rates,
tariffs, fares, or procedures."
AMENDMENT 30
Page 10, following line 2:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 09.25.482. Inconsistencies with federal requirements.
(a) When a state program requires federal approval or
involves the expenditure of federal money or federal
assistance, and there is a conflict between a provision of
this chapter and a federal statute, regulation, or
requirement, then, after completing the procedures in (b) of
this section, the federal statute, regulation, or requirement
shall prevail and the self-audit privilege and immunity
created in this chapter are limited accordingly.
(b) Upon final written notice from the chief executive
officer of a federal agency that a provision of this chapter
is in conflict with a federal statute, regulation, or
requirement and that federal approval, federal money, or
federal assistance will be denied or withdrawn as a result of
the conflict, the chief executive officer of the state agency
in receipt of the notice shall immediately notify the revisor
of statutes that the self-audit privilege and immunity created
by this chapter is limited, so that a revisor's note to that
effect may be published in the Alaska Statutes. The chief
executive officer of the state agency shall also immediately
cause public notice of the limitation to be given and widely
distributed and provide written notice of the limitation to
all owners and operators submitting notices to the state
agency under AS 09.25.450(b)."
AMENDMENT 31
Page 12, lines 1-3:
Delete all material.
AMENDMENT 32
Page 5, line 24:
Following "AS 09.24.450 for":
Insert: "objective facts and"
AMENDMENT 33
Page 6, line 23:
At the beginning of line 23
Insert: "a violation that caused"
AMENDMENT 34
Page 9, line 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) the good faith actions of the owner or
operator in disclosing a violation;"
AMENDMENT 35
Page 10, line 24:
Following "part of the material":
Delete: "described"
Insert: "contained"
Page 10, line 24:
Following "including":
Delete: "implementation issues or"
Insert: "findings, conclusions, opinions,
recommendations, and"
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|