Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/07/2018 01:00 PM House FINANCE
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB299 | |
| HB322 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 2018
1:08 p.m.
1:08:59 PM
[Note: continuation of 4/6/18 1:30 p.m. meeting. See
separate meeting document with that date for detail.]
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz (via teleconference)
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Adam Wool, Sponsor; Mike Navarre,
Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development; Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor,
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit; Representative Andy
Josephson, Sponsor; Tom Atkinson, Staff, Representative
Adam Wool.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Erika McConnell, Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control
Office, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; Linda Bruce, Legislative Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services; Kristin Ryan, Director, Division of Oil
Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental
Conservation.
SUMMARY
HB 268 OPIOID PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION
CSHB 268(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
an "amend" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1(CED).
HB 299 EXTEND: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
CSHB 299(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
HB 322 OIL SPILLS/POLLUTION:PENALTIES;PREVENTION
CSHB 322(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
four "do pass" recommendations, four "do not
pass" recommendations, and two "amend"
recommendations; and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
SB 158 OIL/HAZARDOUS SUB.:CLEANUP/REIMBURSEMENT
SB 158 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and providing for an
effective date."
1:10:46 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the bill had been heard the previous
day and three amendments had been passed. A letter of
intent had been drafted, which may not be needed because he
anticipated an amendment may be rescinded.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, reviewed the committee
action from the previous day. Three amendments had been
adopted, after which the committee was interested in a
letter of intent. After more consideration he believed
Amendment 2, which gave the commissioner power to reverse
board decisions, may not be the best way to achieve his
intended goal. He provided a scenario where a licensee
objected to a ruling made by the board. He had been
searching for an expedited way for another set of eyes to
look at the issue through a Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) lens rather than
a Department of Public Safety or law enforcement lens. The
division had been moved to DCCED in the past, but he was
uncertain there had been a transformation in the way things
were viewed.
Representative Wool believed the attachment to DCCED should
have been more significant, which was one of the reasons he
had included the appeal process that could happen within 30
days. Additionally, if someone had a grievance or
disagreement with the board they could appeal - the board
met every three months and an administrative law judge
could get involved. He explained the process could take
many months and two or three board meeting cycles. The
timeframe could close a business down, especially if a
business was forced to close during the period due to a
board decision. When a small business operating on tight
margins closes for a few months, it could mean going out of
business. He hoped DCCED staff understood the issue as
well. He surmised it may not be the best process where the
commissioner was only able to see the records the board was
able to see and was not able to discuss the issues with the
director because they may be adjudicating the case.
1:14:22 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to RESCIND the adoption of Amendment
2 [adopted on 4/6/18].
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
MIKE NAVARRE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that he had
not spoken with the Department of Law (DOL), but he had
spoken with Representative Wool and Alcohol and Marijuana
Control Office Director Erika McConnell since the previous
meeting to gain a better understanding of the current
process. He had also reviewed whether Amendment 2 would
help accommodate Representative Wool's goal of achieving
quicker decisions in the appeal process. Ms. McConnell had
communicated there was an informal appeal process (in
addition to the formal process) that could be made within
the division or by the board. He believed it may be a
better opportunity to truncate the conflict resolution
issues Representative Wool was trying to get to. He
believed the ability for an appeal to go to the
commissioner would compromise commissioner's ability to
participate in the process because he would not be able to
gather information in an informal process if he was
adjudicating an appeal.
Mr. Navarre had also spoken with Representative Wool about
the fact that it was an administrative issue; it had not
been something identified in the audit with respect to the
board and "this is an extension of the board." He was
disinclined to deal in a rushed manner in a process that
should be deliberative in terms of changes that could
manifest as unforeseen impacts within the division and for
individuals regulated by the division. He would work with
Ms. McConnell and the board to develop a better conflict
resolution process that would hopefully meet the needs of
individuals being regulated and the unique responsibilities
the division had for the protection of public safety.
1:17:14 PM
ERIKA MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, ALCOHOL and MARIJUANA CONTROL
OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), relayed that she had
spoken with the ABC Board chair and he did not support the
amendment. She shared that the chair had called an
emergency meeting for the following Tuesday with the board
to discuss the amendments. She also had concerns with the
amendments. She spoke to her concern about Amendment 2 with
prepared remarks:
Regarding Amendment 2, the five member ABC Board is
comprised of 2 industry members, a public safety
member, a rural member, and a general public member.
The members are vetted by the governor's Boards and
Commissions Office, appointed by the governor, and
confirmed by the legislature. These individuals are
familiar with the industry and with the statutes and
regulations that govern the manufacture, possession,
and sale of alcohol. They manage over 1,800 alcohol
licenses. As required by statute, the board meets at
least once per year in each judicial district in the
state "to study this title and to modify existing
board regulations in light of statewide and local
problems." The board may hold public hearings to
ascertain the reaction of the public or a local
governing body to a license application and where a
local government protest or public objection is
received, such a hearing is required.
As all of you are aware, alcohol has both significant
negative effects on communities in our state as well
as significant positive economic effects. Under the
current Title IV, the legislature has committed to the
five member board with expertise, knowledge base, and
sensitivity to the issues to appropriately ascertain
the public interest in controlling alcoholic beverages
within the state.
The amendment adopted yesterday could cede this
authority to the commissioner who has none of the same
requirements relating to the establishment of a
knowledge base, development of an understanding of
statewide and local problems relating to alcohol,
through travel and public meetings, and actions in the
public interest. To replace the judgement of five
individuals with the judgement of one is puzzling at
best.
There are additional sections of statute that
authorize the board to take particular licensing
actions that may be affected particularly by Amendment
2, which has the potential to create regulatory
confusion. Those sections are AS 04.06.090, AS
04.11.040, and AS 04.11.480. Yesterday's Amendment 2
in Section 3 would appear to muddy the appeal process
for applicants and licensees. AS 04.11.510(b)(1)
states that if an application is denied the applicant
is entitled to a formal hearing conducted by the
office of administrative hearings in accordance with
the Administrative Procedures Act, Section 44.62.330
through Section 44.62.630. AS 44.62.500 states that
the proposed decision of the administrative law judge
may be adopted by the agency, which would be the
board, and is considered the final decision for the
purposes of AS 04.11.560, which may then be appealed
to superior court. It is entirely unclear where the
appeal to the commissioner of Commerce would fit
within that process.
Another concern, having participated in several
administrative hearings in my tenure as director, is
who would be assisting the commissioner in his or her
review of the records and how the review of the record
would proceed. In some of these cases the record can
go to hundreds of pages and can require significant
time and resources to adequately review. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak on Amendment 2.
1:22:14 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the removal of Amendment 2
impacted the other two adopted amendments.
Ms. McConnell replied that based on Representative Wool's
testimony from the previous day, she believed Amendment 3
had been offered because of Amendment 2. She questioned the
purpose of Amendment 3 if Amendment 2 was repealed.
Representative Wool agreed that Amendment 3 followed
Amendment 2 since it was no longer only for administrative
purposes. He stated that to have something in a department
for administrative purposes only, it was possible to put
the ABC Office or the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office
(AMCO) in any department (e.g. the Department of
Corrections) - he wondered what the difference was. He
stated, "they're moving them around from different
departments with intent." He did not have the legislative
intent on hand describing the reason the office had been
moved from DPS to DCCED. He believed the intent was to make
the division more sensitive to the needs of private
business.
Representative Wool referenced testimony by Ms. McConnell
that alcohol had a negative impact on society in Alaska and
a positive economic impact. He stressed alcohol also had a
positive impact on society - there were people who enjoyed
a glass of wine with dinner, which was not a negative
thing. He was in favor of Amendment 3 that would delete the
language specifying the ABC Board was under DCCED for
administrative purposes only. He supported a connection
between the AMCO and ABC Board with DCCED. He reiterated
there was economic value. He reviewed Ms. McConnell's
explanation of the appeal process the previous day, which
required going to the board, an administrative law judge,
and the state superior court. He stated the process took a
year on average. He stressed the average mom and pop
business owner should have access to a shorter recourse to
try to resolve issues. He was not claiming resolution did
not occur in an informal way, but he had read about cases
that were not resolved.
Representative Wool supported having eyes on the issue that
were more commerce friendly. He wanted to keep Amendment 3.
He understood the confusion that could be caused by
Amendment 2, but he did not believe the current process was
all that great. He specified that when someone had a
disagreement it could take months. He continued that if
someone's license was denied because they did not have a
set of finger prints and the operation of their business
was on hold, they may close. He did not believe it was
fair. He wanted to hear from someone else on the topic
besides the board and the director.
1:25:48 PM
Representative Wilson referenced Ms. McConnell's mention of
an ABC Board meeting the coming Tuesday. She asked if the
meeting would look at the impact of the amendment changes
during the meeting. She wondered if the agency planned to
weigh in on the bill's impact on the board after its
Tuesday meeting.
Ms. McConnell answered in the affirmative. The intent was
for the board to provide its opinion to the legislature on
whatever amendments remain in the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that Amendment 2 was the guts of the
agency review. He asked for verification that
Representative Wool was comfortable that without Amendment
2, Amendment 3 still satisfied the goal of having a more
independent review.
Representative Wool answered in the negative. He understood
the concern that as written, Amendment 2 may hamper the
ability for someone in the commissioner's office to
interface with the division to resolve an issue in a timely
manner, while offering another set of eyes. He did not
really want to go through the administrative law judge
process - he noted he was not claiming there was not a
place for that. He wanted to resolve some of the issues in
a timelier manner. He was amenable to the elimination of
Amendment 2 if it could help the situation. He thought
perhaps there would be another solution down the road. He
noted there was a Title IV rewrite going through and
perhaps that was a more appropriate time.
1:27:57 PM
Commissioner Navarre commented on Ms. McConnell's testimony
that the board had five vetted members. He remarked that
the members were also lay members who came together at four
meetings per year (or more if called into special
meetings). He stated the individuals could not speak to
each other to make decisions prior to meetings. He added
the members all had lives they were leading. The
information that came to the board came in a truncated
period of time when meeting for board deliberations. He
explained that most of the board packet information was
provided by the division. He explained from his perspective
and he believed the frustration experienced by
Representative Wool, reflected a desire to find a better
way to do conflict resolution. He did not think usurping
the appeal process had that outcome. He believed the issue
had more to do with an administrative function. He would
try to have the discussion with the board and further
discussions with Ms. McConnell to determine something that
worked for everyone.
Representative Wool referenced Commissioner Navarre's
mention of an informal hearing process. He did not recall
Ms. McConnell mentioning the process in her testimony the
previous day. He asked to hear from Ms. McConnell that it
was part of the process. Additionally, he wondered if it
was something that someone from the department could be
notified of or asked for advice on. Alternatively, he
wondered if that was off limits.
Ms. McConnell replied that after the board denied a license
application, the applicant had the opportunity to request
an informal conference with either the director or the
board. She believed it would be up to the board to
determine whether or not other individuals within DCCED
could be included. She stated it was something that
Commissioner Navarre and the board could discuss.
1:30:34 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, action on Amendment 2 was RESCINDED.
Co-Chair Seaton was unsure of the purpose of Amendment 3.
He stated it meant DCCED would have some regulatory and
intermediate function, without identifying what that
function was. He was uncertain it would help the situation.
He thought the interaction could be quite different than
what the legislature intended because it was not
identifying anything. He continued that the committee had
just eliminated the process discussed in Amendment 2 to
allow that normal interaction and control in a department
and one of its agencies. The amendment would have
dramatically changed the structure when the agency had been
placed under the department for administrative purposes. He
was uncertain how the legislature would be implementing the
desire by leaving some amorphous goal to have the
department control the board or interact with the board.
1:32:51 PM
Representative Wilson agreed. She no longer saw the
connection with Amendment 3. She understood there was a
rewrite of Title IV. She thought perhaps Title IV was the
more appropriate place to consider the issue. She reasoned
that the bill's purpose was to provide a board extension,
which was necessary. She asked how Amendment 3 could be
beneficial. She wondered what could happen by changing the
board to a regulatory and quasi-judicial agency. She
reiterated her belief there was no longer a connection for
Amendment 3.
Representative Wool thought taking away the language
[specifying that the board was under DCCED for]
administrative purposes only did not give the department
more power. He believed for example, if the commissioner
was called upon to advise or listen in on a case, suddenly
the board would no longer be under DCCED for administrative
purposes only. He did not believe that was a bad thing. He
reasoned that if there was a need for communication it
would not be forbidden [if the amendment was adopted]. He
liked the amendment even without Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Ms. McConnell had comments on
Amendment 3.
1:35:08 PM
Ms. McConnell shared the same uncertainty as Co-Chair
Seaton and Representative Wilson on Amendment 3.
Representative Wilson MOVED to RESCIND the adoption of
Amendment 3 [adopted on 4/6/18].
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wool believed moving the board from DPS to
DCCED for administrative purposes only seemed like a waste.
He thought the move should have some meaning, otherwise he
believed it was for naught. He opined that removing the
language "for administrative purposes only" gave some
intent to the move between two departments. He added he
could look up the historical record to determine why the
move had taken place.
Vice-Chair Gara thought they were arguing over semantics.
He thought the semantics in Amendment 3 were more accurate.
Under DCCED, the ABC Board was allowed to issue
regulations. Part of the amendment specified the board was
regulatory because it issued regulations. He elaborated
that the board made decisions on licenses, penalties,
renewals, and revocations. Amendment 3 classified the board
as a quasi-judicial agency, which he believed was accurate.
He believed the amendment merely specified what the board
does. He did not see a problem with the amendment. He did
not see the amendment getting where Representative Wool
wanted in terms of giving the commissioner the ability to
make decisions, but he believed the amendment accurately
described what the board did.
1:37:24 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that normally departmental
regulations had to be approved by the commissioner. The
wording in Amendment 3 specified it would not be the way
the board would work. He elaborated that the commissioner
would not be able to override regulations. He believed
removing the language would mean the commissioner would be
in charge of and the final decision maker on regulations.
He speculated the language had originally been included
because the intent had been to move the board for
administration to get it out of DPS, but not for the final
approval of regulations made by the board to be made by the
commissioner. He thought the amendment muddied the question
of regulations and approval of regulations.
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed a question to Legislative Legal
Services. He reviewed that the committee had rescinded its
action on Amendment 2, which would have given the [DCCED]
commissioner certain decision making authority. The
committee was currently considering a motion to rescind
Amendment 3. His understanding was the board proposed
regulations (confirmed by others) and made decisions on
licenses including revocations and penalties. Therefore, he
did not believe it seemed odd to classify the board as a
regulatory and quasi-judicial agency. He asked for comment
on Amendment 3.
1:41:00 PM
LINDA BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), stated her understanding of
the question. She questioned whether Vice-Chair Gara was
asking if the amendment would affect the board's regulatory
and quasi-judicial authority. Alternatively, she wondered
if he was asking what would happen if the "for
administrative purposes" language was removed.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified he wondered what the effect would
be of leaving Amendment 3 in the bill. He thought the
amendment seemed consistent with the board's activities.
Alternatively, he wondered what the removal of the
amendment would do.
Ms. Bruce responded that by removing the language "for
administrative purposes only," the department would have
the power to manage the ABC Board like any other board as
permitted within the statutory power of the department. The
department would have potentially oversight over operating
and administrative procedures of the board. However, within
Title IV there was no specification where duties and powers
were directed towards the department over the board. She
stated it was a little unclear. She noted she had not had a
chance to fully analyze the question and would be happy to
provide a written response with more detail.
1:42:32 PM
Co-Chair Seaton pointed out that the duties of the board
were listed in current statute. The only change Amendment 3
would make was the removal of "for administrative purposes
only" language. He stated that if the amendment did not
pass, current statute already contained the amendment's
language in lines 7 through 12.
Representative Wilson stated that normally when the
legislature changed the duties of a board, the process
involved seeking the board's input. She was uncomfortable
that the amendments had sparked an emergency board meeting.
Representative Guttenberg supported the motion to rescind
the amendment. He looked at AS 04.06.010 and relayed he had
been present when the board had been moved from DPS to
DCCED. He believed one of the reasons the move had taken
place was they wanted to deal with DCCED instead of being a
police board. He continued that under current statute the
board was a regulatory and quasi-judicial agency. He
recalled dialogue about the commissioner having discussion
with the board. He stated that if the amendment was
adopted, the commissioner would have no function remaining.
He believed there was a positive aspect of having the
commissioner serve an administrative role in the discussion
with the administrative function of the board. He stated if
the language was removed, the commissioner's role was
removed.
Representative Wool replied that the amendment would remove
the language "administrative purposes only," but would not
take away administrative purposes. He thought
Representative Guttenberg was saying the department would
lose all administrative purposes.
Representative Guttenberg believed the amendment would
remove the department's role for all administrative
purposes. He stated the situation had arisen before when
the board had specified it was independent from the
department and that the department had nothing to do with
how the board operated. He stated it had led to some
problematic situations in the past. He wanted to ensure the
commissioner had some role in oversight. He stated that the
board would have the regulatory, quasi-judicial agency
role, but the commissioner had some purpose as well.
1:46:41 PM
Representative Wool was confused with the interpretation.
He thought by removing the language "for administrative
purposes only" meant the department's role was not limited
to administrative purposes. He explained that it would
remove the commissioner from the process. He directed the
question to Legislative Legal Services and asked if the
marijuana board also had similar language.
Ms. Bruce asked for the question to be restated.
Representative Guttenberg complied. He asked about the
commissioner's role and what the language "for
administrative purposes only" meant in the statute.
Ms. Bruce answered that currently the department only had
oversight over the board for administrative purposes. The
deletion of the language "for administrative purposes only"
would still mean the department had oversight over the
board for administrative purposes. She confirmed that the
same language was used for the Marijuana Control Board
under AS 17.38.080, which provided the board was under
DCCED for administrative purposes only.
Representative Guttenberg asked what role the commissioner
would have in relationship to the board if the amendment
was maintained.
Ms. Bruce was uncertain. There would potentially be
operating and administrative oversight by the commissioner,
but it depended on the statutory authority given to the
department and commissioner, which she had not had time to
analyze.
1:49:50 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if anyone had the
information.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, relayed that the Division of Legislative
Audit looked at numerous quasi-judicial entities including
the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the Parole
Board. The entities were required to be independent in
their judicial function. She believed that the "for
administrative purposes only" language would almost always
appear associated with the various entities. She suggested
the language likely existed when the board had previously
been under DPS and the Department of Revenue (DOR).
Representative Pruitt believed the board had been moved
from DPS to DCCED because DPS had been too involved and
there was a feeling of punishment of license holders and
the desire to move the board to a more of a business
mindset. He reasoned the existing statutory language went
along with that line of thinking. He wondered about the
intent and thought the current language aligned with the
move from DPS to DCCED.
1:52:22 PM
Ms. McConnell answered that she had not worked in her
current position in 2012 when the board had been moved from
DPS to DCCED. She offered to research the legislative
history and provide a written response to the committee.
She added that under AS 04.06.070 "appointment and removal
of the director," the director was appointed by the
governor, but absent some malfeasance only the board could
remove the director. She worked for the board; if the
interpretation of the effects of the amendment was to give
the commissioner of DCCED the authority over the agency it
became very confusing in her role. She elaborated that she
answered to the board, yet under the amendment the
commissioner would have undefined authority. She believed
the intent needed clarification. She planned to ask the
board for its opinion on the amendment during its meeting
the coming Tuesday.
Representative Pruitt stated they were having to piece the
items together to fully understand. He referenced the
testimony by Ms. Curtis and testimony by Ms. McConnell
about trying to keep the independence of the board. Based
on the testimony he believed the current language should be
maintained. He did not believe the debate was merely over
semantics. He thought rescinding the amendment was the
appropriate action.
Co-Chair Seaton directed a question to Ms. Bruce with
Legislative Legal Services. He stated that normally agency
regulations were approved by the commissioner of the
department. He asked if the removal of the language "for
administrative purposes only" would call into question
whether the board could independently set regulations.
Alternatively, he wondered if the regulations would fall
under the commissioner.
Ms. Bruce answered that the commissioner would not have
final say on regulations adopted by the board.
Co-Chair Foster noted Representative Ortiz had joined the
meeting earlier via teleconference.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the Amendment 3 language. He
thought he had heard statements that the amendment would
make the department a regulatory and quasi-judicial agency.
However, he believed the amendment would make the board a
regulatory and quasi-judicial agency. He read from the
amendment. He asked if his understanding was accurate.
1:57:33 PM
Ms. Bruce responded that the board was the regulatory and
quasi-judicial agency under current statute and would
remain so under Amendment 3.
Commissioner Navarre relayed that the board had previously
been housed under DOR before moving to DPS and then DCCED.
He believed the transfers had occurred because there had
been some frustration about maintaining the independence of
the board and administering of a division or department. He
believed maintaining the board's independence was
important. He thought the head of the department should
have some ability to advise a division about how the laws
were administered, but he did not believe the amendment
language would fix the issue. He thought the language would
be inconsistent with the way independent boards were
administered throughout various departments.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to rescind the
adoption of Amendment 3.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Kawasaki, Pruitt, Thompson,
Seaton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Ortiz, Foster
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
the adoption of Amendment 3 was RESCINDED.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal note from DCCED. The
note reflected annual board operation costs of $1.66
million (through FY 23) to be paid for with fees.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 299(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 299(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
2:02:05 PM
AT EASE
2:09:00 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 322
"An Act relating to penalties for discharges of oil
and other pollution violations; relating to oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans for
commercial motor vehicles transporting crude oil; and
providing for an effective date."
2:09:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the bill had been heard on
March 29, 2018. He asked the sponsor of the bill if he had
any comments before taking up amendments.
2:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, referenced prior
committee discussion about the bill's purpose. He shared
the department's [Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC)] belief it was important to update penalty authority
at present in case it was needed; it was not possible to
"retroactively work our way out of that and look to 1977
and 1989 penalty schedules." Additionally, it was expensive
and time consuming for the department to deal with small
penalties without going through the legal system (under
current law). The bill would allow administrative
penalties. He continued it was easier for the department to
obtain cost recovery if the option was available. He
elaborated that the department noted, and the law
reflected, that penalties of an administrative nature were
available for food safety, public drinking water, and
monitoring of contaminates. The Environmental Protection
Agency required administrative penalty authority for all
programs where the state had taken primacy. He stated that
the idea was not novel. Relative to the types of spills, he
agreed with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association's (AOGA)
position that it was generally not the main offender. About
90 percent of the spills requiring DEC's intervention were
not related to the oil industry, but were related to
fishing boats, abandoned mines, and other incidences. The
bill was not designed to come after any one industry.
2:12:15 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought it was an open question on whether
the state could retroactively adopt penalties.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS1015\U.2
(Nauman, 3/16/18) (copy on file) sponsored by
Representative Ortiz:
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "$20"
Insert "$40"
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "$5"
Insert "$10"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "$2"
Insert "$4"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment aligned
with the spirit of HB 322 in the sense it would update
penalties last changed in 1989. He did not believe the
increase fully accounted for inflation. The amendment's
purpose was to update the penalties.
Representative Wilson directed a question to DEC. She
stated the department had raised the penalties from $10 to
$20 and $2.50 per gallon to $5.00 per gallon. She asked why
the department had selected the numbers in the original
bill.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL SPILL PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), explained that the numbers included in the
bill by Representative Josephson accounted for the cost of
inflation. She deferred to Representative Josephson for
further detail.
Representative Josephson replied that with exception to
Amendments 1 and 2 the bill contained an update reflecting
inflation. The figures in Section 2 of the bill (Amendment
1) doubled the existing out-of-date figures. The amendment
was to be consistent with other parts of the legislation
that increased to inflation.
Representative Wilson observed that the updated penalties
appeared to be four times the amount of the existing
penalties.
Representative Josephson responded that he would have to
check to see if the proposed numbers were four times the
existing amounts. The changes in Amendments 1 and 2 were
designed to be consistent with the increases in the rest of
the legislation.
2:16:12 PM
Representative Kawasaki referenced a presentation [by the
sponsor] from a previous bill hearing ["HB 322: The Spill
Bill" provided on March 29, 2018 (copy on file)]. He
pointed to Section 2, which specified the 2018 equivalent
value would be closer to $39.70. He asked why the sponsor
had decided to set the penalties at half of what inflation
would have been in Sections 2 and 3 of the bill.
Representative Josephson replied that the figures in the
bill reflected the will of the House Resources Committee.
He elaborated that the committee had chosen to update the
figures for inflation with the exception of the figures
included in Amendments 1 and 2. The amendments would give
the House Finance Committee an opportunity to weigh in.
Representative Wilson looked at page 5, lines 8 and 9 of
the bill. She noted the bill updated various penalty
thresholds from $500 to $1,000, $100,000 to $200,000, and
$10,000 to $25,000. She turned to page 6, lines 5 and 6 and
observed the same thing was happening. She believed the
initial numbers in the bill had to be close to inflation if
pages 5 and 6 reflected it.
Representative Josephson deferred to his staff.
TOM ATKINSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, replied that
the numbers had been adjusted for inflation in most of the
bill sections. He stated that often it had worked out to be
approximately double the current penalty. In some cases,
the daily penalty had been multiplied by 5. How the
penalties had been set throughout the bill varied. He
referenced Section 2 where the number veered from
inflation. He elaborated that the Section 2 penalties had
been set in December 1977; if the penalties were changed to
reflect inflation they would be four times the existing
numbers, which seemed extreme. The reasoning had been it
seemed more acceptable to double those penalties.
Representative Wilson remarked on a statement made that all
of the other penalties had been increased to reflect
inflation. She thought the numbers would be closer to four
times their existing amounts if the goal was to keep
everything the same [increase levels equally].
Representative Josephson answered that the penalties had
not all been created at the same time, meaning there were
different inflation rates.
2:19:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki pointed out that the presentation
previously given by the sponsor showed that original
penalties in Section 2 were adopted in 1977, the penalties
in Section 4 were adopted in 1989, the penalties in Section
6 were adopted in 1976, and the penalties in Section 8 were
adopted in 1984. He believed keeping things consistent by
inflation proofing the entire bill was accurate.
Vice-Chair Gara requested to be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS1015\U.3
(Nauman, 3/16/18) (copy on file) sponsored by
Representative Ortiz:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "$1,000"
Insert "$2,000"
Delete "$200,000"
Insert $400.000"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
2:21:47 PM
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment was the same
as Amendment 1 but applied to a different section of the
bill.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 30-LS1015\U.5
(Nauman, 4/2/18) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 10:
Delete "annually"
Insert ", every three years,"
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "annually"
Insert", every three years,"
Page 7, line 17:
Delete "annually"
Insert", every three years,"
Page 8, line 24:
Delete "annually"
Insert ",every three years,"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment aimed to increase
administrative efficiency and would mean the consumer price
index calculation would be computed every three years
instead of annually. He elaborated the change would mean
the number would not have to be updated annually in
publications. He believed a three-year inflation adjustment
was adequate.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the amendment
would still inflation proof for the years between the
three-year period. She surmised it would not necessarily
mean inflation proofing once.
Co-Chair Seaton confirmed the inflation would be
cumulative. The amendment merely removed administrative
burden.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:22:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 30-LS1015\U.6
(Nauman, 4/3/18) (copy on file):
Page 9, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 13. AS 46.03.900 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(38) "produced water" means water that is the
byproduct of the exploration, extraction, development,
production, refining, processing, or disposal of
energy-related products;"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 29:
Delete "Section 15"
Insert "Section 16"
Page 9, line 30:
Delete "sec. 16"
insert "sec. 17"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment. He stated that the
bill addressed penalties. Produced water volume was
included in the bill, but the term was not defined in
statute. He had worked with DEC, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and Legislative Legal Services to craft a
definition for produced water. He read the definition the
amendment proposed to include:
"produced water" means water that is the byproduct of
the exploration, extraction, development, production,
refining, processing, or disposal of energy-related
products
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from DEC.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL SPILL PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), shared that the committee had discussed
concerns about how produced water would be defined by the
department if the bill passed. Produced water was
associated with the exploration and production of oil. The
division found cleaning up produced water spills to be very
difficult and damage to the environment was significant;
therefore, DEC requested produced water to be a factor when
calculating penalties associated with spills.
Representative Pruitt stated they had discussed the issue
at a previous bill hearing. He asked for verification that
DEC had not taken into account penalties related to
produced water.
Ms. Ryan answered in the affirmative. The current statue
limited the department's ability to only calculate oil when
it considered the volume of a spill, for the sake of a
penalty.
Representative Pruitt asked how often Ms. Ryan anticipated
the issue would come into play. He asked how many produced
water spills the division knew about, but did not have the
ability to do anything about. He remarked that DEC made the
offender clean up produced water spills, but was unable to
issue a fine. He asked how many cases there would be where
the department missed out on being able to fine for the
offense.
Ms. Ryan answered that it was not possible to clean up a
produced water spill. Typically, the water was saline and
when it ran into tundra, plants were killed quickly. She
elaborated that the spills occurred in older fields on the
North Slope where more and more water came up as the oil
was pumped down. She noted when spills occurred it was
becoming more common for the volume to be more water than
oil. From DEC's perspective, the damage was as significant
to the environment. The fact that the spill could not be
cleaned up and that spills could occur in large volumes,
was the reason DEC proposed to include produced water in
its volume calculation for penalties. She added the request
was not unusual. She detailed that Oklahoma and Texas
included produced water in their penalty calculations. She
explained it was difficult for the spiller to calculate and
prove what portion of the spill was water and what portion
was oil. The amendment would simplify the calculation
process.
2:29:19 PM
Representative Pruitt did not believe there was a unanimous
agreement between the department and partners about the
damage from produced water. He asked for verification that
DEC's position was the water caused immediate damage and
killed tundra, while some industry individuals felt the
damage was not at the same level.
Ms. Ryan believed there were many opinions about the
effects of produced water versus oil. From the department's
perspective, it was easier to clean up oil than it was to
clean up salt water. She elaborated that salt water was
absorbed and oil tended to sit on the surface. The
department's view was the water damaged the environment.
Representative Pruitt stated there was a substantial amount
of wind on the North Slope and the wind pushed the salt
onto the tundra. He asked about the difference.
Ms. Ryan answered that salt water spray from the ocean
impacted a small amount of land near the shore. A spill of
produced water was inland and in the thousands of gallons
in an area of tundra that was not typically impacted by
ocean spray. She added that produced water salinity could
be much higher than ocean water salinity.
Representative Pruitt asked how many spills happened
annually and how many were off-pad.
Ms. Ryan would have to follow up with the information.
Representative Pruitt asked if a spill on-pad in a
contained environment was considered damaging to tundra.
Ms. Ryan responded that DEC was focused on spills that
caused damage to the environment. A spill on a pad was
captured in gravel and was not impacting the environment.
There were many spills on-pad, which the department did not
issue penalties for. Penalty language would apply for
spills off the pad.
Representative Pruitt highlighted Ms. Ryan's testimony
about thousands of gallons [of produced water]. He thought
there would be significantly more reporting of the spills
[if spills were at that level]. He thought Ms. Ryan was
making it sound like the problem was frequent. He was
trying to determine the frequency of the spills. He
wondered if there were bad actors. He thought the
discussion from the previous bill hearing was that people
would rather do something inappropriate because the
penalties were so low. He asked if the problem was
happening without abandon, which was the reason the
amendment was necessary.
2:34:10 PM
Ms. Ryan did not have the numbers on hand, but there were
several [produced water] spills per year (not more than
10). The spills were semi-frequent.
Vice-Chair Gara was comfortable with the amendment. He
believed the point of the legislation was to deter
individuals from taking less care. There was a history of
companies that had acted very responsibly and those that
had acted irresponsibly at times. He cited the Exxon Valdez
oil spill and Deepwater Horizon as spill examples in the
past. He reasoned that everyone did not always act as
desired, which was the reason for penalties.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the scope of Amendment
3 was limited to adding a definition of produced water. He
asked if the definition included in the amendment was
typical when defining produced water. He wondered if it was
inclusive or exclusive.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that a couple of different
suggestions had been provided including "water that is
brought to the surface as a byproduct of extraction and
hydrocarbons" and "produced water means extracted in the
development, extraction or disposal of energy related
products." He elaborated that Legislative Legal Services
had developed the definition as there was not one in
statute. The goal was to avoid confusion as to what
constituted produced water. His objective was to have the
ability to solve a problem and to avoid going to court to
determine what the definition of produced water was. The
amendment was limited to defining produced water and made
no changes to fines or fees.
2:36:35 PM
Ms. Ryan confirmed that the definition in the amendment was
consistent with what she had seen in other states. The
definition was an explanation that produced water was
related to the development, exploration, and production of
oil or other oil related products.
Representative Kawasaki surmised the definition was a
general concept of produced water that was inclusive and
similar to definitions in other states. He was trying to
ensure the definition was accurate. He added the amendment
was in context to Section 5 dealing with fines associated
with produced water. He believed it was appropriate for the
public, industry, legislators, and courts to understand
what was meant when the term produced water was used.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
2:38:12 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 30-LS1015\U.4
(Nauman, 4/2/18) (copy on file):
Page 9, line 9, following "law.":
Insert "The person shall submit the oil spill response
plan to the department electronically."
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment would require oil
spill response plans to be submitted electronically. The
idea was for plans to be viewable by people in more than
one location. He elaborated that the process would be much
more efficient for responders and could save time in
cleanups when people knew exactly what the response plan
was including items that would be available on scene or on
board. For example, what a truck was hauling and who was
designated in their response plan as the responder in order
to avoid confusion.
Representative Wilson clarified that the oil spill response
plans were submitted to DEC for the record and were
approved by a separate entity. She surmised the purpose was
to let people know what would take place in the event of a
spill.
Co-Chair Seaton answered in the affirmative. The intent was
for plans required of companies to be available for
cleanup. The amendment did not require anything else to be
done. Updating plans would also be much more convenient and
everyone would be apprised of the current plan.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He did not
believe DEC needed all of the plans; however, he believed
if the state was going to make companies submit plans it
was better to have them submitted electronically. He noted
his concern there would be numerous documents that were not
needed. He elaborated that the department had not known of
the federal requirement until recently. He thought it
showed either the failure of the department or that the
issue had been managed in the past without needing [the
spill plan]. He thought the documents would sit in an
electronic file that may not be needed.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:42:13 PM
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal note from DEC. The
amendment reflected a cost of $10,800 in FY 19 and an
ongoing expense of $2,700 in outyears from the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund.
The note also reflected the gain in revenue of $74,700 in
FY 20 up to $80,100 in FY 24.
Representative Wilson asked if the inflation calculation
would cost $2,700.
Ms. Ryan replied in the negative. The only cost associated
with doing the inflation adjustments was the publishing of
the regulations, which would be on a three-year cycle
(based on an amendment that passed).
Representative Wilson asked for verification it would cost
$2,700 to update for inflation every three years. The note
included language that regulations would need to be
reviewed annually, which would be changed to every three
years based on an amendment that passed. She did not
understand the cost.
Ms. Ryan answered that it would not cost that much to do
the inflation regulations. She believed the language
implied the overall cost of doing regulation changes for
updating penalties over several cycles.
Representative Wilson assumed the $10,800 was for the
initial regulation in FY 19. She wondered if other
regulations had to be done annually because of a federal
government requirement. She asked if the cost was
associated with something the department already did that
had nothing to do with the legislation.
2:44:45 PM
Ms. Ryan answered that the bill assumed DEC would update
regulations every year, but it had been changed to every
three years. She believed the cost in the fiscal note would
be slightly reduced due to the change.
Representative Wilson stated the only thing the bill
required every three years was inflation. She asked if
there was some other regulation update requirement the
department would have to update every three years.
Ms. Ryan answered in the negative.
Representative Wilson remarked that calculators were pretty
inexpensive.
Co-Chair Foster relayed there may be a new fiscal note
forthcoming with more revenue.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that the cost reflected in the
fiscal note was not for someone using a calculator, but for
the RSA [Reimbursable Services Agreement] with the
Department of Law to address the regulations. There was
also a cost when regulations went to public notice. He did
not see anything in the fiscal note attributing the cost to
someone calculating the inflationary effect.
Representative Wilson pointed to language on page 2 of the
fiscal note specifying that regulations would need to be
reviewed annually to reflect inflation.
2:46:17 PM
Vice-Chair Gara countered that it was not what the full
sentence said.
Representative Wilson read the sentence on page 2 of the
fiscal note:
Contractual costs reflect estimated RSA with the
Department of Law for consultation and legal review
during the development of new regulations as well as
required public notice in Anchorage, Juneau, and
Fairbanks. Regulations would need to be reviewed
annually to reflect inflation.
Representative Wilson stated the fiscal note included
$2,700 in FY 20 through FY 24 associated with the work.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Ryan to provide a written
response with clarification.
Ms. Ryan agreed.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 322(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. Stated there was opposition
to the bill from the Alaska Trucking Association and AOGA.
She did not believe the committee had addressed the
entities' concerns. Conversely, she thought the bill added
additional things for the trucking industry to do.
Representative Thompson corrected the motion to move the
bill.
Co-Chair Seaton restated his motion.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
2:49:09 PM
Representative Kawasaki supported the updates dealing with
inflation. He remarked there had been myriad inflation
changes since 1976, 1984, and 1989. He had concern about
the policy dealing with resource issues. He appreciated
clarity on the definition of produced water. He had a bit
of trouble with some of the other policy issues dealing
with punitive administration fees in Sections 1 and 6.
Additionally, he had overriding concerns about how a
penalty deters or changes bad behavior. He did not know
that it had proven to be the case. He appreciated the
sponsor bringing the bill forward and wanted to see it move
forward. He believed the bill was ready for a more thorough
debate on the House floor.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he had worked with some of the
penalties when he had worked on the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
There had been a debate at the time on whether to just use
the penalties, which had been inadequate. He elaborated
that the state would not have received the $1 billion
settlement if it had merely imposed the per gallon penalty.
Additionally, in a big case there were resources to try to
prove damages, but in a smaller case, trying to assess the
value of a bird, 100 pink salmon, or other, was very
difficult. He stated that the penalties were especially
important in those cases, meaning someone did not have to
go through the vast expense of measuring the value of the
harm. He believed penalties were important. He reasoned the
state might as well throw out the penalties in criminal and
administrative law and driving violations if the belief was
they were ineffective. He stressed there would be a cost if
the state was not careful, especially at the expense of
fishing streams and waters, which were a hallmark of the
state. He noted the state had always bragged to the federal
government that Alaska did things right - that oil was
produced in a way that protected those things. He believed
the bill was important.
Representative Pruitt opposed the legislation. He thought
the bill seemed to try to force certain actions as if they
were not already being done. He referenced a letter from
AOGA (copy on file) indicating the millions of dollars per
year put into ensuring industry did everything possible to
prevent spills. He pointed to the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company with over 200 drills and $100 million annually
spent on prevention and readiness. He recalled Alaska Clean
Seas had specific equipment on the North Slope costing
hundreds of thousands of dollars. He stressed that industry
was already doing the things the bill aimed to force
industry to do. He pointed to a report from the Division of
Spill Prevention and Response showing the number of spills
and volume had declined. He emphasized that many people
working in the oil industry did not want to see damage done
to the environment and were doing everything they could to
prevent it. He was concerned the bill was aiming to attack
a group of people as if they were bad actors. He did not
believe the group was filled with bad actors.
Alternatively, he believed the group was trying to put the
investment, time, and energy into protecting the
environment.
Representative Pruitt understood a conversation about
penalty fees, but he did not support multiplying them by
four. He discussed that the state had been going after the
cruise ship industry - the penalties had been added in 2006
and would be increased beyond inflation under the bill. He
believed the bill was wrapped in punitive policy as opposed
to considering what the state was doing to partner with
industry to protect the environment. He believed the focus
should be on partnering with industry/groups instead of
pitting people against each other.
2:55:41 PM
Representative Guttenberg highlighted a recent occurrence
as an example. He elaborated that someone had not checked
their [truck] load and had taken out a bridge. He recalled
that one woman waiting in traffic had a baby. He questioned
how all of the people waiting in traffic felt about the
company not following procedures. He supported the bill and
was happy there had not been a recent accident that would
single out one company in Alaska. He referenced Ms. Ryan's
testimony there was an Alyeska issue that was basically
sabotage that Alyeska had nothing to do with - the company
was not fined, and it participated in the cleanup. However,
there had been instances where companies were bad actors.
He noted the incidents occurred much less than in the past.
When considering the punitive aspect, he asked members to
consider how the individuals waiting in traffic for hours
felt about the situation. He continued that if the truck
had not taken out a bridge there would not have been a
problem; however, one bad apple could cause significant
damage that could hurt many people.
Co-Chair Seaton made it clear that he did not believe they
were being overly burdensome on industry by adjusting for
inflation. The goal from 1977 to present was not to
continually reduce the penalties. He believed it was
prudent to adjust for inflation. The passed amendments
merely brought penalties up to account for inflation
because the years the given penalties were established were
15 years earlier than the penalties in other bill sections
(1977 versus 1985 and 1989). He did not believe prior
legislatures that had set the penalties had been
overburdensome at the time. He reiterated his belief that
adjusting the fines for inflation was the right thing to
do.
2:58:54 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Ortiz was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 322(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass"
recommendations, four "do not pass" recommendations, and
two "amend" recommendations; and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
3:00:26 PM
AT EASE
3:01:07 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to the prescription of opioids;
relating to the Department of Health and Social
Services; relating to the practice of dentistry;
relating to the practice of medicine; relating to the
practice of podiatry; relating to the practice of
osteopathy; relating to the practice of nursing; and
relating to the practice of optometry."
3:01:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the bill was last heard on
April 2, 2018.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS1081\E.1
(Radford, 4/4/18) (copy on file):
Page 7, line 16:
Delete "February"
Insert "October"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara explained the amendment would extend the
date boards shall adopt regulations to implement the CDC-
type [Centers for Disease Control] regulations the
committee had previously discussed. The CDC had recognized
the national opioid epidemic. The bill asked various boards
with prescribing authority to adopt regulations consistent
with the CDC's national recommendations. The department had
requested giving boards additional time to adopt the
regulations; therefore, the amendment would move the date
from February 2019 to October 2019. He reasoned 15 months
should be ample time for the work to be done. He did not
believe the regulations should be difficult to adopt,
consequently he hoped the boards would adopt them more
quickly. He explained that when the bill passed the boards
could start working on the regulations, the department
could put the information on its website for prescribing
practitioners to print out for patients. The amendment
would mean regulations would be adopted by October 2019.
3:04:05 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
3:04:41 PM
AT EASE
3:04:54 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Foster asked Co-Chair Seaton to review the fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
which reflected a cost of $15,500 in receipt services for
FY 19.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 268(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 268(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with an "amend" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:06:56 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 322 - Amendment packet.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB 299 - Letter of Intent.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 316 Support 4-6-18.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB 322 Support 4-6-18.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB 322 - DEC Response to H FIN re HB322.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |