04/24/2002 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2002
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 448
"An Act relating to establishing a data base of residential
telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephone
solicitations, providing that the data base be compiled at no
cost to the customers, requiring telephone solicitors to
purchase the data base, and requiring paid solicitors to
register; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 448(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to pesticide use; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 66(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to liens by owners of self-storage facilities;
distinguishing self-storage facility liens from another type of
storage lien; and excluding self-storage liens from the
treatment of certain unclaimed property."
- MOVED CSHB 277(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 424
"An Act relating to title insurance; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 448
SHORT TITLE:TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2309 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2309 (H) L&C, JUD
03/13/02 2530 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MORGAN
03/15/02 2564 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER,
KERTTULA
03/18/02 2593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
03/19/02 2611 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
03/22/02 2654 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, HAYES
03/25/02 2674 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
03/26/02 2691 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS, WILSON
03/27/02 2720 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER, CROFT
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/02/02 2765 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BERKOWITZ
04/04/02 2806 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: LANCASTER
04/05/02 2820 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
04/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/08/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/15/02 2936 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/24/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE:TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CISSNA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0100 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0100 (H) L&C, RES, FIN
01/25/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/25/02 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/15/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 277
SHORT TITLE:SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LIENS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAVIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1947 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1947 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1947 (H) L&C, JUD
01/30/02 2100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/27/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/08/02 (H) Heard & Held -Assigned to
Subcommittee
04/08/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
CODY RICE, Intern
to Representative Joe Hayes
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 448, assisted
Representative Crawford with the explanation of the changes made
in Version B.
WILL ABBOTT, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
701 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 448, responded to a
question.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General
Fair Business Practices Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 448 and
responded to questions.
JAMES ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association (ATA)
201 East 56th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
448.
MARIE DARLIN, AARP
(No address provided)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 448.
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Special Assistant
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
448.
ROCCO MOSCHETTI, Owner
Integrated Pest Management of Alaska
PO Box 875006
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
66.
MICHAEL MILLER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
ROB LUND
(No address provided)
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
KENNETH J. PERRY, General Manager
Paratex Pied Piper Pest Control
2440 East 88th Avenue, Suite A
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
66.
MAGGIE FLANAGAN
1722 Bellevue Loop
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
PAMELA K. MILLER, Program Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
505 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 205
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
66.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
66.
ROB EARL, Staff
to Representative Sharon Cissna
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed proposed amendments to HB 66.
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 66.
MARY SIROKY, Manager
Information Education & Coordination
Division of Statewide Public Service
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
66.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Version S of HB
277.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-64, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order. Representatives Meyer and
Rokeberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 448 - TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION
Number 0105
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 448, "An Act relating to establishing a data
base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to
receive telephone solicitations, providing that the data base be
compiled at no cost to the customers, requiring telephone
solicitors to purchase the data base, and requiring paid
solicitors to register; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 448, version 22-LS1407\L, Craver, 4/8/02, which was
adopted as a work draft on 4/8/02.]
Number 0127
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 448, Version 22-LS1407\B, Craver,
4/23/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version B
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, speaking as the sponsor, noted that in
Version B, the effective date has been changed to July 1, 2003.
In addition, a few technical changes have been made in an effort
to clarify who is exempted; currently there are two groups:
those exempt because they are a charitable organization and
those paid solicitors and telemarketers who have to pay for the
"do-not-call" list.
Number 0251
CODY RICE, Intern to Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State
Legislature, assisted Representative Crawford with the
explanation of the changes made in Version B. He pointed out
that Version B contains "a ceiling for the annual cost of the
list" to those participating in telephonic solicitation. He
also noted that those who are currently exempt will remain so
under Version B. He mentioned that there is a new fiscal note,
and that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) will no
longer have to set "the reasonable rate" for individual local
exchange carriers regarding the do-not-call list. He opined
that this will save money and be an offset to the fiscal note.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether any changes have been made that
will clarify that charitable organizations will be fully exempt.
MR. RICE said yes, and noted that subsection (e) in Section 11
clarifies this point. In response to another question, he
remarked that nothing has changed with regard to political
solicitations - they remain exempt.
Number 0512
WILL ABBOTT, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA), testifying via teleconference in response to a question,
confirmed that the RCA does anticipate a cost savings via
Version B. He added:
We would ordinarily include whatever they charge for
the "black-dot" now - it'd be included in their tariff
- and then we don't have to do that any more. It's
not a huge saving to us - ... we can probably say that
there's about a $1,000 in there - but one of the
things I think we also have to recognize is that it
also comes out of our regulatory cost charge. So it's
not general fund.
Number 0563
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General, Fair
Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), testified via teleconference and said
that after working with the sponsor and resolving DOL's one area
of concern with HB 448, DOL is now in support of the
legislation.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Sniffen if he is familiar with the
fiscal note.
MR. SNIFFEN said that he was aware of the numbers contained
therein and had some knowledge of how they were arrived at. He
ventured that there is a one-time cost of about $24,000 that was
allocated for regulation development, and an annual amount of
$4,700 for personnel costs related to the third-party
administrator who will establish the do-not-call registry and
sell the list to telemarketers. He relayed that the interplay
between that administrator and his office will require just a
little bit of DOL's time.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI observed that most of the fiscal note will be
used for drafting regulations, and asked whether the amount
listed is a reasonable figure for that task.
MR. SNIFFEN said that according to his understanding, quite a
bit of time goes into drafting regulations: "you have to put
them out for notice, you have to have a ... public hearing on
the regulations, review comments, [and then] have them
reissued." He explained that there is actually someone in [DOL]
who is familiar with the regulation-making process and thus
provided the estimation on the costs to create these
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that other states "that do
this" generate a positive cash flow. Additionally, he surmised,
prosecution of those who violate the proposed statute will also
result in revenue, which should offset the fiscal note.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed that could be the case since "this bill does
contain very good provisions that requires telephonic sellers to
identify themselves and provide more information to callers that
would help our department to find them if we do need to engage
in enforcement or prosecution." However, he noted, he is not
sure that the possibility of potential future revenue could
accurately be reflected in the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked why, given the possibility of
generating future revenues, HB 448 did not have an indeterminate
fiscal note.
MR. SNIFFEN pointed out that notwithstanding any future revenue,
the costs related to creating the regulations will still exist.
He indicated that perhaps the cost associated with the third-
party administrator may be offset somewhat in the future
revenues, but such is still not something that can be quantified
at this time. He surmised that submitting an indeterminate
fiscal note will not improve [the bill's chances] any more than
the minimal fiscal note that was submitted.
Number 0914
JAMES ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association
(ATA), testified via teleconference and said that although ATA
is not in support of HB 448, it is no longer averse to the bill
in its current version. He said that the local telephone
companies that he represents have agreed to advertise via both
advertising methods, although there is a small cost. He then
referred to page 3, line 3, [paragraph] (5), which says, "any
other matter relating to the data base that the attorney general
considers desirable", and remarked that although he can
appreciate why [DOL] favors this language, he wants legislators
to keep in mind that ATA would prefer that no additional costs
be placed on the local telephone industry due to the development
of regulations. He suggested that [removal of the
aforementioned provision] would make ATA comfortable in
supporting HB 448.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, after acknowledging that the aforementioned
language does appear to be "pretty open-ended", relayed her
belief that it did not appear necessary to allow the attorney
general that extra latitude unless "it's just so uncertain; we
don't know what to anticipate at this point."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that the only reason that language
is in the bill is because the attorney general's office has
indicated to him that it is a necessary component of the
legislation.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Sniffen what DOL envisions "might come
under" [paragraph] (5) on page 3.
MR. SNIFFEN said:
I don't know that we have any specific matter of
concern, which is probably why the language is as
vague as it is. Because you never really know, until
you actually sit down and start thinking through these
kinds of regulations, what you might have to do to
implement the purpose and intent of the bill. And we
would have no objection to changing that language to
something along the lines of ... "any other matter
that the attorney general feels necessary to implement
the purpose of this statute", or something along those
lines. It certainly isn't our intention to create
anything that would impose an additional cost on the
local telephone companies.
I think one of the purposes of the bill is to actually
take that cost away and pass it on to the telephonic
sellers. So, with that, if there's some proposed
language that would make the telephone folks happy
that we could put in and that would still give us some
flexibility to implement regulations that aren't
specified in ... [paragraphs] (1)-(4) -- if we were
limited to drafting regulations just on those items, I
think we might not have the authority to accomplish
some other things that might be necessary to implement
this.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that what [the committee] would attempt
to do is contain any additional cost that might be imposed on
the existing telephone companies; therefore, leaving the
language as is [is not acceptable].
Number 1262
MARIE DARLIN, AARP, said simply that [AARP] is in support of HB
448.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed the public testimony on HB 448. She
asked Representative Crawford to share his thoughts on how best
to address the concerns raised regarding the [paragraph] (5).
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD suggested adding language that says,
"any other matter relating to the data base that the attorney
general considers desirable that does not add to the cost to
local telephone exchanges".
CHAIR MURKOWSKI predicted that such language might be
[problematic] if, for example, the additional cost were "a
penny." She suggested that it would be better to insert
language that recognizes the committee's wish to limit the cost
to the local exchange carriers.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he would be in favor of such
language.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed.
Number 1407
CHAIR MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
on page 3, at the end of line 4, after the word "desirable"
insert "recognizing the intent to minimize cost to local
exchange carriers". There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned that perhaps "politicians and
pollsters" should not be excluded from the provisions of HB 448.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD pointed out that such an exclusion is
required by "the constitution." He then referred to page 2,
lines [13-14], which read, "The fee for a data base may not
exceed $750". He said:
What we intended that fee to be was no more than once
per year, but if we put "annual" in there, that would
lead people to believe that they had to repurchase it
every year even if they didn't intend to do a
telephone solicitation in the next year. I don't know
exactly how to word that better. Our intention was
... that they would only have to pay that fee once per
year.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI opined, then, that language saying, "may not
exceed $750 annually" would be sufficient to satisfy the
sponsor's intent. She remarked, however, that she thought she
just heard Representative Crawford say that "you only pay that
$750 fee when you purchase ... that data base list." "You don't
have to do it on an annual basis, do you?" she asked.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied, "If you were to do another
telephone solicitation campaign the next year, you would have to
buy that list once again."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI observed, "At a price not to exceed $750."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated, then, that it would be appropriate
to say, "may not exceed $750 annually".
Number 1609
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, line 28, [paragraph]
(2), which read, "the frequency with which the data base is
updated". He said that he finds that language to be problematic
because although there [will be] a toll free number that a
solicitor can use to add himself/herself to the data base, the
frequency with which that data base is updated will be
determined by [DOL]. For example, "if you put an annual $750
amount, and there was a requirement for an update, then you
couldn't charge for the update" if it was within that one-year
period.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that although he had asked the
drafter to [resolve] that issue, it had not yet been done;
rather than leave it up to DOL to determine the frequency of the
update, the goal was to simply have the update done once
annually. He suggested amending HB 448 to that affect.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI indicated agreement with doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG argued, however, that "it might be as
much as a year almost before they could get 'black-dotted' if
they were a newcomer - if you didn't have an update - ... [but]
if you had updates that could be purchased periodically ...."
He remarked, though, that perhaps that isn't what the committee
really wants to do after all.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said, "We didn't want to do that; we
wanted to do it quarterly."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there have been any
discussions yet with "any of these potential third-party
contractors and how they would do this."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said, "We've had numerous discussions
with third-party contractors and with the attorney general's
office."
Number 1769
MR. RICE said that according to the third-party providers with
whom he has had discussions, under federal regulations local
exchange carriers are required to show "that they can serve
phone numbers." As the population is increasing, he added, "the
numbers that are used are being used up" and have to be
recycled; those numbers are turned over to the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) on a quarterly basis, and that's how they
accomplish this.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked why, then, would the committee want the
data base updated annually. Why not quarterly, she asked.
MR. RICE said, "That would be a compromise; I think that would
help ease tension."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Rice how he would address
Representative Rokeberg's concern. To illustrate, she posed the
following scenario: "The announcements go out in the mail the
first of the year, I don't move to Anchorage until March, I want
to ... be black-dotted, but I wouldn't be able to be black-
dotted until January of the following year."
MR. RICE said that with the exception of Anchorage and
Fairbanks, that's how it works in most of Alaska: in most of
Alaska, "all they have is a black dot next to your name in the
phone book and you don't get in 'til the next phone book comes
out." Therefore, he pointed out, the changes made by HB 448
would not be that far off from current practice.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Why have the technology then?"
He also asked, "Why do it if we're not going to utilize it?"
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said, "The idea was to keep the cost
down; we would have much preferred to update it quarterly, but
there seems to be some trepidation amongst the people in the
department that they don't know if we could do it for the cost
that we've set forth here." He added that he did not want the
costs to go too high, but since no one knew how high the cost
would go for such as small state, the goal was to leave as much
leeway as possible in the current language.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI suggested that with that in mind, perhaps it
would be best to leave the language in [paragraph] (2) as is so
that the frequency would be determined via regulations rather
than statute. She predicted that as long as the $750 cap was
stated in statute, it would be alright to allow the department
to determine, via regulations, the frequency of the updates.
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out, however, that although he
can appreciate the need for the aforementioned cap - in order to
maintain a reasonable cost - [solicitors] should pay for more
frequent updates; unfortunately, the cap would preclude such.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI conceded that point.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD relayed that according to his research,
the highest cost thus far in the nation is $800.
MR. RICE explained that different states use different time
periods for updates. For example, some states update daily,
most states update quarterly, and some states do it less
frequently still. He pointed out that solicitors will only be
required to purchase the list upon registration, which is
required annually.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised, then, that in essence it merely
becomes an annual fee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that by not requiring
solicitors to receive the updates, it defeats the purpose. He
predicted that this will be problematic.
MR. RICE opined that telemarketers do not really want to contact
people who have no interest [in the products offered] and, thus,
it will be in their own best interest to get updates whenever
possible. He said he doubts that the data base will change
significantly over the course of the year, perhaps only as
little as 5-7 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that instead of having an annual
fee, they could simply institute a requirement that solicitors
receive and pay for the list quarterly for $175 per quarter. By
doing so, the state would still be receiving income for the
service, and solicitors that stop doing business during the year
would not have to get any further quarterly updates.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that option had been discussed but
not chosen.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what a solicitor receives for paying the
annual fee. She surmised that the fee would cover the costs of
creating and maintaining the data base, and asked whether it
would be reasonable to assess additional costs for updated
lists.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he thought that there would be an
annual cap of $750 and that solicitors ought to be able to get
as many updates as they wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised, then, that by allowing the
attorney general to set the frequency of the updates, the "as
yet unknown costs" of creating, maintaining, and updating the
lists could be taken into consideration when determining the
frequency; in this way both the original list and any
forthcoming updates would not exceed a cost of $750. He said
that he could envision that there would be different costs
associated with different telephone exchanges.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI paraphrased Representative Rokeberg and
indicated agreement. [Tape ends early; no testimony is
missing.]
TAPE 02-64, SIDE B
Number 2341
CHAIR MURKOWSKI again suggested leaving [paragraph] (2) as is
and changing line 14 [page 2] to read, "may not exceed $750
annually".
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that his goal is to keep the
costs down. He predicted that after the startup costs are taken
care of it will be inexpensive to maintain [and update] the
list.
Number 2270
CHAIR MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, line 14,
page 2, add "annually" after "$750". There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 2221
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, line 14, page 2, after "data base" insert "and
updating". There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was
adopted.
Number 2195
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to, on page 2, line 14,
increase the fee from $750 to $1,000.
Number 2189
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES, turning again to the issue of the fiscal
note, said he questions the House Finance Committee referral for
HB 448 in light of the potential revenue that the bill could
generate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that bills with any form of
fiscal note, whether positive or negative, get referred to the
House Finance Committee.
Number 2120
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Special Assistant, Office of the Attorney
General, Department of Law (DOL), pointed out that the current
version of HB 448 does not have any provision for "any of this
money to back to the department." This bill is drafted so that
the money goes to the administrator and not to the state
coffers, she added. She said that if it is the committee's
intention to have any of the aforementioned revenue come back to
the state, HB 448 needs to be amended to reflect that intention.
In response to questions, she relayed that the sponsor's staff
has been attempting to get the third-party administrators to
provide some form of cost model.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that originally, the funds
were to come back to the attorney general's office, which would
then pay the third-party administrator. The bill, however, has
since changed, and now any funds generated will be going
directly to the administrator. He said that it was his
intention to make "this a self-supporting program." He also
remarked that although his desire is to satisfy everyone's
concerns, that may not be possible and still have a viable piece
of legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that language could be added
to require the third-party administrator to reimburse [DOL] for
the cost of administering the program, adding that in doing so,
it might also be a good idea to increase the fee to $1,000.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that by requiring the third-party
administrator to reimburse the state, the fiscal note could be
eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed on that point, but remarked that
raising the fee to $1,000 might result in fewer solicitors. He
said he would prefer to keep the cost down if at all possible.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned that having fewer solicitors would not
necessarily be a bad thing. She said she agrees with
Representative Rokeberg about adding a provision that requires
the state to be reimbursed for any costs incurred for this
program.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he had intended for the state
to be reimbursed; he had not realized that that provision had
been removed during the process of changing the bill in attempts
to suit all parties.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recommended that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment that would ensure that the state is
reimbursed.
Number 1840
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4, "that the state be reimbursed for the costs of the
administration of this program."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that Ms. Smith has relayed to him
that "there is a way to do this through statutory program
receipts - that is like getting a fishing license - that it
could be done." He expressed concern that time is running out
for passage of this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO surmised that there is still time.
Number 1720
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that there were no objections to
Conceptual Amendment 4. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG relayed his concern that in setting up a
data base listing one group of people, then, simultaneously, a
data base is also being created that lists all others - "a
negative list" so to speak. He asked the sponsor to keep this
in mind as the bill continues to move through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Mr. Sniffen whether Conceptual
Amendment 4 will result in a zero fiscal note.
MR. SNIFFEN said that assuming the state can find a third-party
administrator willing to take on this project knowing that it
will have to reimburse the state for costs, then, yes, it should
result in a zero fiscal note.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 448, Version 22-
LS1407\B, Craver, 4/23/02, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 448(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 66 - TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
Number 1570
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to pesticide use; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 22-
LS0352\J, Lauterbach, 1/24/02, which was adopted as a work draft
on 1/25/02.]
Number 1543
ROCCO MOSCHETTI, Owner, Integrated Pest Management of Alaska,
testified via teleconference. He noted that there are many
alternatives to pesticides, and said that although he did not
use pesticides himself, he feels that pesticides are an
important tool. He remarked that HB 66 could put an undue
burden on private applicators of pesticides. He asked why
sanitizers and disinfectants are excluded from the requirements
of HB 66, specifically the reporting/tracking system, given that
sanitizers and disinfectants are pumped into ground water and
wells, and used in oil and gas production. He said that he
supports the intent of HB 66 with regard to the pesticide
manufacturers fee. He reiterated that there are a lot of
alternatives to pesticides.
Number 1420
MICHAEL MILLER testified via teleconference in support of HB 66.
He said that he is speaking from the standpoint of someone who
is living with a terminal disease. He opined that HB 66 would
protect people, address children's health issues, and
potentially prevent disease. He mentioned the issue of farmed
salmon versus wild salmon. He suggested adding to the Pesticide
Advisory Board one member from the state Epidemiology Section.
Number 1335
ROB LUND testified via teleconference in support of HB 66. He
relayed that he is a beekeeper in Homer, and that Alaska has a
number of "hobbyists and small, commercial beekeepers," and has
a certain potential for an expanded beekeeping industry. He
pointed out that pesticides can do substantial damage to
honeybee colonies, and that unregulated pesticide use is a
definite threat to beekeepers. He urged the committee to pass
HB 66 as a means of protecting the environment in general and
providing a measure of security for beekeepers.
Number 1289
KENNETH J. PERRY, General Manager, Paratex Pied Piper Pest
Control, testified via teleconference. He said that he does not
see any significant changes in the current version that would
address the concerns raised at the last hearing on HB 66. He
opined that the proponents of HB 66 have made it clear to him
that "our view is unimportant." He remarked that there is
nothing in the current version of HB 66 that will address the
concerns raised regarding privacy. He also opined that the only
way that anonymity can be achieved is for the (indisc.) in this
state to be changed, and that won't occur via HB 66.
MR. PERRY said that once the information specified in [proposed]
Sec. 46.03.325(c) is received by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), it can be requested by any party for any
reason. For example, he said, an "anti-pesticide group" can
request and receive this data, then publish it in the newspaper
with names and addresses. Furthermore, anti-pesticide groups
can post protestors outside of businesses or residences of
people who have decided to use a pesticide or even sell the data
to a competitor. He added:
The reality of this danger was driven home to me ...
when Representative Cissna ... [presented] to me two
copies of a confidential service report issued by my
competitors at American Pest Management. On each
report was the name, address, and phone number of the
customer, the service date and sanitation report, and
the chemicals and the amounts applied to each site.
Now, while this might be considered unethical, it was
not illegal because she received this information from
another organization with similar rights and rules ...
as the state - the Anchorage school district.
MR. PERRY relayed that according to further information he
obtained from Representative Cissna regarding pesticides in
Alaska waters, the only pesticides traces found were chemicals
that are not used in the state of Alaska, have not been used in
the U.S. for 15-30 years, were found in migratory fish that
spend the bulk of their lives in the open ocean, and were
measured in parts per trillion. He characterized HB 66 as a
solution looking for a problem, and urged members to not be
intimidated by "these extremists as represented by the outside-
funded groups who are pushing [HB] 66."
Number 1054
MAGGIE FLANAGAN testified via teleconference in support of HB
66. After noting that she is testifying on her own behalf, she
explained that she is a "newborn ICU [intensive care unit]
nurse" at Providence Alaska Medical Center and has 20 years of
experience dealing with newborns in high-risk nursery settings
across the country. She said that she has been concerned about
pesticide exposure ever since her first year of nursing, when
she took care of an infant that was the child of a Vietnam
veteran. Since then, she relayed, she has worked in Chicago
where she saw a lot of Hispanic children with birth defects, and
in Hawaii where she saw children with birth defects. She said
that she wants the committee to know that the child with the
worst birth defects she has ever seen was the son of an
exterminator in Honolulu.
MS. FLANAGAN continued:
And if you know about pesticides, you probably
understand that men are particularly at risk for
passing on problems to their children ... because men
are not born with all their eggs intact as women are.
Men ... constantly, in the course of their
reproductive systems, develop new genetic matter for
their children to be sprung from.
MS. FLANAGAN said that she wanted to relay to the committee that
it is really important to track pesticides and that there is a
growing body of scientific data regarding the harmful effects of
pesticides on children's health. She elaborated:
We know that children have a more rapid metabolism.
We know that fetuses are more at risk if they're
exposed while their mothers are pregnant with them.
We know that children, pound for pound of body weight,
not only eat more and breathe more, but they also play
on the floor and lawn where pesticides are commonly
applied. And any person in the room there who has
children knows that anything that they touch, they
eventually will put their hands [into] their mouths.
So these kids are vulnerable citizens of Alaska.
Number 0950
I want you to understand, in the nursery at
Providence, I'm seeing a lot of Native children with
birth defects; I'm seeing Native children with
gastrointestinal abnormalities and facial anomalies.
I have talked to the ... Alaska state department
person who is doing birth defect registry here, and
we're very concerned about what her data will show,
but it is in just the beginning stage. Why are we
here to speak for this pesticide bill is, until we
start tracking these things we will never know if
there's any correlations or trends. If you ask me can
I say that those Native children that I take care of
at Providence Hospital, are those birth defects
related to pesticides, I will tell you that it is
suspicious and we need more information.
And the only way we can get more information is to be
allowed to track. I am concerned about pesticides. I
think HB 66 is good because it is a right-to-know
bill. It will help with tracking of exposures. It
will give our medical researchers a place to start
gathering information about pesticide exposure in
Alaska. It also could help the individual healthcare
provider, if they find out that one of their patients
had been exposed to pesticides, that may change the
course of medical treatment and it may make medical
treatment more effective. ... I'm very dismayed that
pesticides are used in instances where other things
could be done, not only possibly cheaper, but also
safer.
Number 0842
PAMELA K. MILLER, Program Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, testified via teleconference. She explained that most
of the studies done in Alaska regarding pesticides have not
measured currently used pesticides. Therefore, she remarked, it
is really disingenuous to say that there is no problem in
Alaska; rather, it is simply not known yet whether there is a
problem. She added that a pesticide-use tracking system will
provide researchers with the information necessary to assess the
relative contribution of long-range sources of pesticides versus
those generated within the state. She said she believes that
such a system is necessary for good research and for protection
of Alaska's water quality, fisheries, subsistence food, and
human health. As a biologist, she stressed her belief that this
legislation is a very valuable research tool that is necessary
as a basis for a good, contaminate research program in Alaska.
Number 0761
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified via
teleconference. She said she simply wanted to say that [DEC]
does not have any problems with the [as yet unmentioned]
proposed amendments. However, the proposed amendment that
addresses confidentiality is of concern and would need a little
alteration in order for the amendment to work. Ms. Adair, in
response to Chair Murkowski, confirmed that she was referring to
the amendment relating to keeping the information reported to
the department concerning the location of the application of the
pesticide confidential.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed the public testimony on HB 66. She then
recessed the meeting to the call of the chair at 4:55 p.m.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reconvened the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Meyer, and Rokeberg were present at
the call to order.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt CSHB 66, Version 22-
LS0352\O, Lauterbach, 4/8/02, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version O was before the committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed the committee that there are a couple
of amendments to which she requested the sponsor address.
Number 0624
ROB EARL, Staff to Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, answered on behalf of the sponsor of HB 66,
Representative Cissna. Mr. Earl turned to the [Amendment 1],
which read:
Page 2, line 17:
Delete (1) and insert a new subsection (1):
"on property to be sprayed and on each residence and
each commercial building with a different operator
within a one-quarter mile of the site where the
spraying will occur if the residence or commercial
building is located on property that is contiguous to
the property to be sprayed,"
MR. EARL explained that the aforementioned amendment would
tighten the posting notice language so that one wouldn't have to
post multiple commercial buildings owned by separate operators.
Number 0538
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1
as specified earlier.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She asked if
the amendment should refer to "each residence or each commercial
building" rather than "each residence and each commercial
building". She then determined that the "and" language was
acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to who the "operator" is.
MR. EARL clarified that the drafter used the term "operator" in
order to delineate between commercial buildings owned by the
same operator so that the owner won't [have to post all of their
buildings].
Number 0443
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee amend Amendment
1 such that the word "operator" is deleted and replaced with the
word "owner or manager". There being no objection, the
amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Therefore, Amendment 1 as
amended was before the committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI removed her objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued discussion of Amendment 1 and
noted that he was pleased that the language specifies
"contiguous to the property to be sprayed" and "within one-
quarter mile".
MR. EARL pointed out that the language [in Amendment 1] is
modeled after the Anchorage Municipal code. He related his
understanding that currently there is no statute relating to
posting.
Number 0281
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2,
which read:
Page 4, line 26:
Delete (f) and insert a new subsection (f):
"In addition to the other civil or criminal penalties
that may be applicable, a person 18 years of age or
older who fails to comply with a reporting requirement
established under this section is liable to the
department of a civil penalty. The penalty may be up
to $1000 for the first failure to comply and up to
$2000 for second or subsequent failure to comply."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes.
MR. EARL related that Amendment 2 address Chair Murkowski's
concerns that a teenager might be liable for the civil
penalties. Amendment 2 also responds to the department's
concern that language didn't allow someone who was "illegally
not certified" to be fined. Therefore, [adoption of Amendment
2] would result in someone over the age of 18 being liable if
that individual fails to comply with the recording requirements.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there should be a "knowing failure to
comply" before one is subject to the penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that [Amendment 1]
could apply to anyone, even a civilian. The language replaces
references to licensed custom, commercial, or contract
applicators.
MR. EARL pointed out that the reporting requirement is only
applicable to the licensed custom, commercial, or contract
[pesticide applicator].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI expressed concern that adoption of Amendment 2
would mean that a 21-year-old who isn't aware of any reporting
or registration requirements, can apply Round Up to someone's
property for a fee and be subject to these penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the original draft implies
that [this speaks] to a licensed applicator. He asked if
currently there is licensure for a [pesticide] applicator or is
it included in the legislation.
MR. EARL confirmed that currently there is licensure for a
[pesticide] applicator.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the sponsor's original
intent with regard to the fine.
TAPE 02-65, SIDE A
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to how Amendment 2 is better than
the current inept language.
MR. EARL explained that [Amendment 2] is in response to the
department's concern that it wouldn't be able to find someone
that wasn't a licensed applicator.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated her belief that the 21-year-old
college student shouldn't be subject to these fines for
registration when applying a pesticide when he/she has no idea
there is an issue with the application of that pesticide.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that every Master gardener in
the state would be subject to [these penalties].
Number 0066
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 66, said that the intent was [to address]
someone who had been licensed and who had gone through some
training and thus knew how to use the pesticides. She agreed
that there will be those who use Round Up in such a way that it
would be construed as what an applicator would do, however,
without the intention of their actions being a business or
subject to any of the requirements in HB 66. Representative
Cissna said that she read the language as only applying to an
applicator.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI explained that if [Amendment 2 is adopted], the
legislation is no longer only limited to licensed custom,
commercial, or contract pesticide applicators. With the
adoption of Amendment 2, the legislation would be open to anyone
over age 18 who fails to comply with the recording requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that Amendment 2 is ambiguous
and he didn't like it.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to the problem with subsection (f)
as it is in the CS. Under the CS, the department can impose the
civil penalty on the licensed applicator who fails to comply,
which is the person at which this legislation is aimed.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed because the licensed applicator
knows the requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER withdrew Amendment 2.
Number 0249
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned attention to Amendment 3 on page 4, line
31.
MR. EARL explained that Amendment 3 addresses the concern of Mr.
Perry in regard to records being open to the Public Records Act.
[Amendment 3] adds [language specifying] that reported
information would remain confidential.
Number 0365
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3,
[which was unavailable at the time of transcription].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She related
her understanding that Amendment 3 is an additional
confidentiality provision to that [already] under [Sec.
46.03.340](a).
MR. EARL clarified that without Amendment 3 these [records]
wouldn't have been exempted from the Alaska Public Records Act.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection.
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Amendment 4, which addresses the
concern raised by Ms. Adair.
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4,
[which was unavailable at the time of transcription].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes.
MR. EARL explained that without Amendment 4 Ms. Adair was
concerned that the place in statute where one would look to see
if something is exempted would not have been listed.
Number 0500
MARY SIROKY, Manager, Information Education & Coordination,
Division of Statewide Public Service, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), clarified that the [Alaska]
Public Records Act includes a list of exemptions and [Amendment
4] merely adds [paragraph] (10) to that list.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI removed her objection.
There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed attention to page 4, subsection (d) and
inquired as to how the department would acquire the data. As a
consumer, she surmised that there would be a questionnaire from
the department inquiring as to the pesticide products one might
have in their household. She asked if that would be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that during the last hearing, one
[pesticide] applicator questioned why only one part of the use
population would be addressed. Probably the greatest number of
people who come in contact with pesticides are those who
purchase them over the counter at various retail stores. This
legislation attempts to rule out the ways in which pesticides
enter the environment.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated that she wasn't convinced that the
department would be able to conduct a statistically valid
survey, and therefore she questioned why it's included in the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA replied that one of the reasons this
survey was included in statute was so that the Pesticide
Tracking Board would have a mechanism allowing them to work with
the department to develop something that would work. The
department won't have the resources to perform everything
required to make this work [and thus the board was to take on
some of the responsibilities] and, in fact, volunteer
organizations may take on some of the duties as well. However,
there would need to be department oversight in order to ensure
that it would work for the department.
Number 0765
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 66, Version 22-
LS0352\O, Lauterbach, 4/8/02, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, CSHB 66(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:18 p.m. to 6:20 p.m.
HB 277 - SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LIENS
Number 0804
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 277, "An Act relating to liens by owners of
self-storage facilities; distinguishing self-storage facility
liens from another type of storage lien; and excluding self-
storage liens from the treatment of certain unclaimed property."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that the subcommittee did meet with the
sponsor and a committee substitute (CS) was drafted and is
before the committee.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that HB 277 be removed from
subcommittee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed CSHB 277,
Version 22-LS0175\S, Bannister, 4/22/02, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version S was before the
committee.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor HB 277, noted his appreciation for the work done
by the [subcommittee]. Representative Davies announced is
support of Version S. He noted that [Version S] tried to
address Representative Kott's desire for there to be a good
faith effort to determine the property value. Representative
Davies related his belief that Version S is a good balance
between the consumer interest and the commercial interest.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI expressed concern regarding the cost that
included the personnel and administrative costs. She recalled
that the [costs] would include actual and documented costs of
disposing of the property. However, on page 3, line 12, the
language refers to "the actual documented costs, including
personnel and administrative costs, of disposing of the
property". She noted her preference of the language she had
suggested, which read as follows: "the amount owed includes the
cost, including actual and documented costs of disposing of the
property". She mentioned her discomfort with leaving this
language open-ended.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that he didn't have any problem with
deleting the language ", including personnel and administrative
costs," on page 3, line 13.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that addresses her concern.
Number 1080
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 3, line 13,
Delete ", including personnel and administrative
costs,"
Page 3, line 29,
Delete ", including personnel and administrative
costs,"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1124
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed attention to the notice
provisions on page 3, line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that originally the language
specified one notice of publication but Version S [requires]
notice to be published two times within 14 consecutive days.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that published notice is
expensive.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to the notice requirements under the
current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that he didn't believe the current
statutes were clear on the notice requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is a general disposal of
property statute that's being utilized. He expressed the need
to balance the interests of the property owner with the
operator. Representative Rokeberg recalled that normal legal
notice is three times.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that published notice could be
a documented cost that could be recovered.
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled previous testimony from an
auctioneer who was raising the estimated values. He asked if
[that language] was eliminated or finessed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES specified that the aforementioned was
handled by requiring a good faith effort to determine the value,
which can be found on page 4, lines 9-13. Representative Davies
pointed out that the improvement of lien doesn't actually
[require] a publication notice but rather requires that there be
notice of sale by registered letter to the individual to whom
the article(s) belong and also by posting notice of sale in
three public places in the recording district. Representative
Davies also pointed out that the publication and posting
requirements on page 3, Sec. 34.35.630 use "or" language.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI highlighted that the legislation doesn't allow
posting if there is a "newspaper of general circulation in the
community where the self-storage facility is located".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his view that this is a good
piece of legislation.
Number 1395
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 277, Version 22-
LS0175\S, Bannister, 4/22/02, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 277(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|