Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/14/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB366 | |
| HB140 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 140-REGULATIONS: NOTICE, REVIEW, COMMENT
2:02:54 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HB 140. "An Act relating to the proposed
adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation; and relating to
contact with agencies about regulations." [This was the first
hearing and CSHB 127(FIN) am was before the committee.]
2:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 140, explained that this legislation is
intended to address the problem of government over regulation,
which local businesses believe is stifling growth. She read the
following excerpt from the Alaska State Medical Association and
stated that it was the motivation to continue her mission to
help reform the regulatory process:
The regulatory process is deficient and closed. The
Department of Law's advice to departments on the
regulatory process dissuades public discussion or
discourse once a regulatory package is released
publicly. In fact, departments are often instructed
not to answer questions or provide additional
information during the public hearings except for
pointing to the exact language in the proposed
regulation. This leads to a frustrating and seemingly
meaningless public process, beyond submitting written
comment. Furthermore, once public hearings are held,
there is no requirement that the final regulations be
similar to the proposed regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described HB 140 as a significant step
toward increased transparency in the regulatory process and a
more business-friendly climate in Alaska.
She provided the following sectional analysis: [Original
punctuation provided.]
Bill section 1. Gives the Act a short title.
Bill section 2. Amends AS 44.62.040(c) to remove the
exemption for boards and commissions. Adds language to
accommodate those agencies that have different rules
for the adoption of regulations. Allows the governor
30 days to return regulations to the adopting agency.
Bill section 3. Amends AS 44.62.190(d) to identify
additional information that may be included, if
applicable, about the reason for the proposed action,
including federal or state action requiring the
proposed action. Adds information that is to be
provided for the estimated annual costs of the
proposed action, including the costs to private
persons, other state agencies, and municipalities.
States that the estimated annual costs are to be based
on a good faith effort to estimate the costs using
information available to the state agency.
Bill section 4. Adds new subsections to the notice
statute, AS 44.62.190. The first, sec. 44.62.190(f),
prohibits court actions to challenge a regulatory
action for the inaccuracy or insufficiency of the cost
estimates. The second, sec. 44.62.190(g), requires, as
feasible, that the subject lines of electronic mail
and titles of written publications providing the
information required by AS 44.62.190(d) give the
reader a fair idea of the substance of the proposed
regulation, amended regulation, or repealed
regulation.
Bill section 5. Amends AS 44.62.200(c) to require that
a complete copy of each regulatory action, and, if
feasible, the material incorporated by reference, be
posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System.
Bill section 6. Amends AS 44.62.200(d) to remove the
exemptions for the Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
the Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game, from
the requirement to provide a brief description of the
changes made by the proposed regulation, amended
regulation, or repealed regulation.
Bill section 7. Adds sec. 44.62.213(a) to authorize
contact between agencies and the public when
developing regulations. Adds sec. 44.62.213(b), which
directs agencies to make a good faith effort to answer
written or at meeting questions before the public
comment period ends. After that, allows an agency to
answer the questions. Requires an answer to be written
and that the question and answer be made available to
the public. In sec. 44.62.213(c), prohibits court
actions to challenge a regulatory action for the
inaccuracy or insufficiency of answers provided under
sec. 44.62.2 13.
Bill section 8. Amends AS 44.62.215, which requires an
agency to keep a record of public comment when
adopting a regulation, to delete the exemption for
boards and commissions and to require that an agency
keep a record of public comment received
electronically or orally as well as in writing.
Bill section 9. Amends AS 44.62.245(c) to require an
agency to send certain notices to the members of the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee.
Bill section 10. Amends AS 44.62.320(b) to tie the
submission of regulations by the lieutenant governor
to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee for
review to the time the regulation is submitted to the
lieutenant governor for filing.
Bill section 11. Amends AS 44.62.320 to allow the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee chair to
submit comment on a regulation to the lieutenant
governor within 10 days after receiving the regulation
from the agency under (b) of the section.
Bill section 12. Provides applicability provisions for
the sections of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD mentioned the indeterminate fiscal note
and stated that her office was talking with certain agencies to
see, based on input from this committee, whether they
potentially need to be exempted from certain provisions in the
bill.
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that the exemptions relate to Section
6.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered to return and talk about the
specific provisions.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to the letter from the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) that
expressed concerns with the bill. One concern was that, "giving
the Governor veto power over the decisions of an agency that is,
by design and statute, independent would violate that
independence." He questioned whether it wouldn't be better to
strip Section 2 from the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referenced the memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services that addresses the question of
whether a quasi-judicial entity ought to be excluded from the
bill.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the sponsor to provide the committee a copy
of the opinion. He asked her understanding of the question about
the governor's veto power.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stressed the nothing in the bill gives
veto power to anyone. Section 2 does allow the governor to send
a regulation back to an agency for two reasons. The first is if
the regulation is inconsistent with law. The second is that the
governor may send the regulation back [so the agency can respond
to specific issues that were raised.]
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned giving the governor what is
tantamount to veto power over agencies that are set up to be
independent.
CHAIR COGHILL referenced Section 11 and asked if 10 days was
sufficient for the Administrative Regulation Review Committee
(ARRC) to review a regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD opined that it was adequate if the
committee is active and has good staff.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she believes that 10 days strikes an
appropriate balance and she likes that the provision is
discretionary with regard to submitting the regulation to the
lieutenant governor. She offered personal experiences when she
chaired the committee.
CHAIR COGHILL noted the individuals available to answer
questions.
2:18:54 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that AOGCC's first concern was that
the bill would force commissioners to participate in ex parte
communications. He asked the sponsor her thoughts on that
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that there was nothing that
requires a commissioner to participate in ex parte
communications.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI read the explanation from AOGCC and
summarized that the commissioners are saying that they make
their decisions in the public, but the bill would allow people
to call a commissioner and demand an explanation of their
reasons for a proposed regulation or a change in regulation. He
pointed out that the public can't engage in that kind of back
and forth with judges and that's what raises the ex parte issue
in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that the commissioners can
deal with that through a "frequently asked questions" page on
the website, they could have staff respond to questions, or they
could hold a public hearing and answer questions then. The goal
is to ensure that people have an opportunity to speak with their
government, but the communication doesn't have to be direct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he's very supportive of parts of the
bill, but is concerned that decision makers who are acting like
judges would be required to participate in ex parte
communications. He suggested including a provision that excludes
quasi-judicial decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that Legislative Legal
Services issued an opinion that said that just because an agency
is independent or quasi-judicial does not exclude it from
provisions in the bill. However, there is a statute that states
that the way that the AOGCC writes regulations may be cause for
concern. She said her office was working with the chair of AOGCC
to address that issue.
CHAIR COGHILL advised that the committee was working on a Senate
committee substitute that would address some of the concerns and
still allow some review.
He opened public testimony.
2:22:47 PM
SARAH GEARY, Legislative Coordinator, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), Juneau, Alaska, stated support for HB 140 on behalf of
AML. She said that because many state and federal regulations
impact municipality budgets, it would be helpful for planning
purposes to have an idea of what those impacts will be. HB 140
will ensure that agencies consider the costs that regulations
potentially impose on individuals, businesses, and
municipalities. She expressed gratitude for the attempt to look
at the broader impacts of regulation changes.
2:24:11 PM
LESLEE OREBAUGH, Assisted Living Association of Alaska (ALAA),
testified in support of HB 140 on behalf of ALAA. She said the
unintended consequences and costs of regulations have long
plagued individuals and the business industry in the state. She
offered this view from the perspective of 24 years of business
ownership. Although government officials often say that they
have considered private business, it doesn't appear to make a
difference. She restated support for the legislation.
2:25:49 PM
AL TAMAGNI Leadership Chair, National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB), Anchorage, Alaska, said his comments echo those
of the previous speaker. HB 140 gives the business community an
opportunity to voice opinions and place some responsibility on
agencies. It levels the playing field by providing full and open
disclosure.
2:26:58 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated he would hold HB 140 for further
consideration.