03/17/2016 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB259 | |
| HB229 | |
| HB351 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2016
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Talerico
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to relocation assistance for federally assisted
projects and programs; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 259 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by the
legislature; and relating to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to adoption of regulations; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 351(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 276
"An Act relating to limitation of a driver's license."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE: RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR FED. PROJ/PROG
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/16 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): CHENAULT
01/19/16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/16
01/19/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/16 (H) STA, FIN
02/04/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/04/16 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/16 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/15/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/16 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: ADOPTION OF REGS; LIMITATIONS; VOID REGS
SPONSOR(s): PRUITT
02/24/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/16 (H) STA
03/17/16 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 259 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor.
ROGER HEALY, Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services (DSDES)
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 259.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 229, as prime sponsor.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 for HB
229, on behalf of Representative Keller.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 351, as prime sponsor.
JENNA CROUSE, Staff
Representative Lance Pruitt
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 351 on behalf of
Representative Pruitt, prime sponsor.
AL TAMAGNI, Leadership Council Chairman
National Federation of Independent Business
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 351.
SCOTT OGAN
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 351.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:10 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Keller, Vazquez,
Spohnholz, Kreiss-Tomkins, Talerico, Stutes, and Lynn were
present at the call to order.
HB 259-RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR FED. PROJ/PROG
8:08:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 259 "An Act relating to relocation assistance for
federally assisted projects and programs; and providing for an
effective date."
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), presented HB 259 on behalf of the
House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor, by request of the
governor. He stated that HB 259 would bring Alaska statutes
into compliance with federal law. He went on to say that when
right of ways are required for public transportation purposes,
federal law requires [DOT&PF] to compensate the property owners
for the value of the property and also to provide relocation
benefits for displaced families, businesses, and farms. Under
the federal initiative known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act ("MAP-21"), signed into law in 2012, the
federal government has made it easier to qualify for the program
and also has increased to the maximum the relocation assistance
that is available to affected parties. Benefits paid to Alaskan
families and businesses under this program would be eligible for
federal participation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for confirmation that the proposed
legislation would be specifically for the purpose of complying
with federal requirements as they pertain to relocation and
assistance to the relocated parties.
MR. BINDER confirmed Representative Keller's assessment and
added that since the values were last updated in the 1980s, HB
259 would remove the payment limits in order to be in compliance
with federal law and to avoid having to make future changes to
the statutes.
8:12:06 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:12 a.m. to 8:13 a.m.
8:12:35 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed
public testimony on HB 259.
8:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ cited the payment limits on pages 2 and
3, which are deleted in HB 259, and asked about the current
practice of payment when someone incurs costs exceeding those
limits.
8:13:44 AM
MR. BINDER responded that if families, businesses, or farms are
relocated, Alaska must be in compliance with federal law. He
continued that the relocation expense is eligible under the
federal program for the usual match of 90 percent of federal
funds, depending on the project.
8:15:28 AM
ROGER HEALY, Director/Chief Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design & Engineering Services (DSDES), Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), responded that the
relocation benefits are set by federal law and Alaska cannot
exceed them. He added that these payments are just for
relocation and not for acquisition of the properties.
8:16:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked when this federal law was enacted.
8:16:16 AM
MR. HEALY responded that the federal highway law referred to as
MAP-21 was passed in July 6, 2012, and included language
increasing the amounts of compensation, thus prompting the need
to change Alaska statute.
8:16:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if there are limits pursuant to the
federal law.
8:16:53 AM
MR. HEALY responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to page 1, line 10, which read:
"in accordance with the requirements and limitations of 42
U.S.C. 4601-4655 (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1070)." She noted that
citing federal statute for future limits was good future
planning.
8:17:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 259 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 259 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
8:17:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:18 a.m. to 8:23 a.m.
HB 229-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
8:23:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act relating to regulation notice and
review by the legislature; and relating to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee."
[Left pending from the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting on 3/15/16 was a motion by Representative Keller to
adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-LS1104\A.4, Gardner, 3/10/16, with
an objection by Representative Stutes for the purpose of
discussion. The pending objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 2 was treated as withdrawn.]
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes for HB
229. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
8:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 229, indicated that he had no objection to
Amendment 2, by Representative Keller. He said he had a few
concerns that could be addressed.
8:25:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 2,
labeled 29-LS1104\A.5, Gardner, 3/16/16. [Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 is provided at the end of the minutes on HB 229.
The difference between Amendment 2 and Amendment 1 to Amendment
2 is the addition of Section 4, subsection (h), on page 3, lines
17-21, as numbered on Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.]
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for purpose of discussion.
8:26:25 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, said that
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 addresses a concern regarding the
effect that HB 229 would have on the ability of the Board of
Game and the Board of Fisheries to pass regulations. He
indicated that the language [in question] was on page 2,
beginning on line 27 [as numbered on Amendment 1 to Amendment 2]
and was in Section 4, subsection (f) [of Amendment 2]. The
proposed amendment addresses that concern [by the addition of
subsection (h)]. He offered that the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature previously addressed this same concern in passing
House Bill 140 in which exemptions were made for the following
quasi-judicial agencies: the Board of Game, the Board of
Fisheries, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee (AOGCC). He stated
that Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 would allow the regulations and
the regulatory process within these agencies to remain intact.
8:27:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 was lengthy and included many citations. He
queried whether the committee might benefit from a more detailed
explanation of the entire amendment. He also asked which
document was being called Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
8:28:06 AM
MR. POUND clarified that the document labeled A.5 was Amendment
1 to Amendment 2.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, maintained that the committee had already heard a
detailed explanation of Amendment 2. He recommended adoption
of Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 for further discussion.
8:29:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:29:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Chair Lynn, clarified that
the committee members now had Amendment 2, as amended, before
them for discussion.
8:29:50 AM
MR. POUND explained that [Amendment 2, as amended] would change
the title of HB 229, in Section 1, by inserting "providing for
legislative review, amendment, approval, disapproval, annulment,
and delay of proposed agency regulations", following
"legislature;", on page 1, line 1. He stated that Section 3
would be renamed Section 2, and that Section 2 would put AS
44.62.320(d) back into the statute - that is, review of
regulations by the legislature. He added that Section 2 would
authorize without question the jurisdiction of committees to
review proposed regulations. Mr. Pound referred to Section 3,
subsection (d), and noted the 35-day time period for committees
to take action on a regulation, after which time a department
could proceed with implementation. He pointed out that 35 days
is within the normal public comment period.
MR. POUND continued by describing the process by which the
legislature could temporarily disapprove a regulation, outlined
in Section 4 of Amendment 2. This process would allow a
department to amend a regulation to comply with legislative
intent or, if the department refused, would delay the regulation
until the next legislative session, at which time the committee
could introduce legislation to disapprove the regulation. Mr.
Pound stated that Section 3 consists of the review criteria for
a regulation - that is, the regulation meets the requirements of
the statute, follows legislative intent, and meets certain cost
requirements. He stated that Section 3 returns AS 44.62.320(d)
to the statute.
MR. POUND referred to Section 10 of Amendment 2, which states
that the departments must review any amendments proposed by the
legislature and, if no action is taken during the legislative
session, the regulation would be implemented the day after the
end of session. He also noted that Section 10 states that
regulations would be submitted to the presiding officer of each
house, since HB 299 would eliminate the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee. Mr. Pound then referred to Section
12, which explains that new language for regulations would be
displayed in the same format as new language for legislation for
ease of review.
MR. POUND explained that through the changes in Section 13 of
Amendment 2, the proposed legislation would require the
department to provide fiscal notes on regulations detailing how
much a regulation would cost the department, the division, and
the public. He went on to cite Sections 16 and 17 which would
require the cost information to be submitted to presiding
officers who in turn would submit the information to the
committee of jurisdiction for review. Mr. Pound said that
Section 18 states that the presiding officers would receive a
copy of the regulations in a timely manner, and Section 19
details the annulment process, already described.
8:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Pound to verify that
under the proposed Amendment 2 the annulment process would be as
follows: if a committee voiced disapproval of a proposed
regulation, the regulation would not be implemented until the
end of the legislative session giving the committee the
opportunity to put forth legislation that would effectively
nullify the proposed regulation, and then, if the legislature
failed to pass legislation to nullify the regulation, the
regulation would go into effect at the adjournment of the
session.
MR. POUND agreed but stressed that the committee would not be
able to annul a regulation. He stated a committee could put a
hold on the implementation of a regulation.
8:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ lamented there had been little time to
review the eight-page amendment. She asked how emergency
regulations would be handled by the proposed amendment.
MR. POUND responded that the only change made by the adopted
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 [by Amendment 1] is found in Section
4, subsection (h), on page 3, lines 17-21, and names the
organizations that would be exempt [from regulation suspension]
- Board of Fisheries, Board of Game, RCA, AOGCC, Office of
Victims' Rights (OVR), and the Alaska Office of the Ombudsman -
and also mentions the exemption for emergency regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the proposed amendment
includes emergency regulations from the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), Division of Public Health (DPH).
MR. POUND confirmed that emergency regulations are included in
the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if an agency can decide to name a
regulation as an emergency regulation to be included in the
exemption.
MR. POUND responded that there is existing language in AS 44.62
regarding emergency regulations, and if a department wished to
extend them, it would have to go through the regulatory process.
8:42:35 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:42 a.m. to 8:43 a.m.
8:43:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to AS 44.62.250, titled
"emergency regulations", which states that departments are
allowed to issue emergency regulations if, and she quoted from
the statute, "necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, safety, or general welfare."
8:44:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection to Amendment 2, as
amended. Without further objection, Amendment 2, as amended,
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER called attention to the copy of an e-mail
in the committee packet, addressed to Mr. Pound, staff to
Representative Keller, and Nancy Manly, staff to Representative
Lynn, from Natasha McClanahan, Assistant Legislative Director,
and Office of the Governor, which describes the fiscal impact of
Amendment 2. Representative Keller noted the zero fiscal note
attached to the amendment and asked the committee to adopt the
zero fiscal note. He asked Mr. Pound to respond to the items in
the e-mail for the committee members.
8:46:53 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:47 a.m.
8:47:05 AM
MR. POUND stated that the e-mail described concerns from the
departments and agencies concerning the delay of regulations.
Mr. Pound expressed his observation that since legislation often
takes two years to pass, there is already a delay. He added
that when a department introduces a regulation, within 90 days
it becomes the "law of the land" and no review is required. He
cited one agency's claim on page 2 of the e-mail that $164,000
would be needed to hire a regulation specialist to analyze
legislation. Mr. Pound contended that it already was the
responsibility of the departments and agencies to analyze bills
so that the regulations they created met legislative intent, and
that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to make sure they
fulfilled that responsibility. He voiced his agreement with the
sponsor that Amendment 2, as amended, should have a zero fiscal
note.
8:49:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the zero fiscal note, the
fiscal note from the Department of Law (DOL), and the negative
fiscal note. Without objection, it was so ordered.
8:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed that she hasn't had opportunity
to review the lengthy document from the Office of the Governor
to legislative staff. She referred to the adopted Amendment 1
to Amendment 2, page 4, line 30, and indicated that she couldn't
locate the cited statute, AS 44.62.325.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER mentioned that HB 229 would be referred to
the House Finance Committee if it moves out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ claimed that although she likes the
intent of HB 229, the House State Affairs Standing Committee
shouldn't relegate their duties to another committee.
MR. POUND responded to Representative Vazquez's question by
saying that AS 44.62.325 is new language and is located on page
7 of Amendment 2 [Section 19, beginning on line 18].
8:52:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated that since there is a concern on the committee
regarding HB 229, he will hold the bill.
AMENDMENTS
The following amendments to HB 229 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 [29-LS1104\A.5, Gardner, 3/16/16]
(adopted):
Page 1, line 1, following "legislature;":
Insert "providing for legislative review,
amendment, approval, disapproval, annulment, and delay
of proposed agency regulations;"
Page 1, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material.
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 1 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 24.05.182(a) is amended to read:
(a) A standing committee of the legislature
furnished notice of a proposed action under
AS 44.62.190 or 44.62.320(d) shall, consistent with
the committee's jurisdiction as provided in the
uniform rules of the legislature, review the proposed
regulation, amendment of a regulation, or repeal of a
regulation before the date the regulation is scheduled
by the department or agency to be adopted, amended, or
repealed.
* Sec. 3. AS 24.05.182(d) is amended to read:
(d) A standing committee that receives a copy of
a proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
under AS 44.62.320(d) shall, within 35 days after
receipt of the proposed regulation, amendment, or
order of repeal, approve or disapprove the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal. If the
standing committee does not take action within 35 days
after receipt of the proposed regulation, amendment,
or order of repeal, the proposed regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal shall be considered
approved. If a standing committee determines that a
regulation, amendment to a regulation, or repeal of a
regulation does not properly implement legislative
intent and disapproves or returns the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal to the
department or agency, the standing committee's
findings shall, within 35 days after receipt of the
proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal, be
transmitted to the
(1) department or agency;
(2) regulations attorney at the Department
of Law; and
(3) senate secretary and the chief clerk of
the house of representatives [ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].
* Sec. 4. AS 24.05.182 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(e) Except as provided in (h) of this section, a
proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
that is disapproved under this section or that is
returned to the department or agency with a proposed
amendment shall be suspended until the adjournment of
the next regular legislative session following the
date of the committee's disapproval. The notice of
disapproval under this section expires upon
adjournment of the regular legislative session during
which the disapproval or amendment was made or, if the
legislature is not in regular session, the next
regular legislative session following the date of
disapproval, unless the legislature enacts a law that
annuls the proposed regulation or order of repeal.
(f) If the standing committee that is reviewing a
proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
under this section disapproves the regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal or proposes an amendment
to the regulation, amendment, or order of repeal, the
department or agency that proposed the regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal may request leave of the
standing committee to withdraw or amend the proposed
regulation, amendment, or order of repeal.
(g) In determining whether to approve,
disapprove, or amend a proposed regulation, amendment,
or order of repeal under this section, the standing
committee shall consider
(1) whether the absence of a regulation
would significantly harm or endanger public health,
safety, or welfare;
(2) whether a less restrictive regulation
would address the regulatory concerns while adequately
protecting the public;
(3) whether the regulation would directly or
indirectly increase the cost of any goods or services;
(4) whether the increased cost of
implementing and enforcing the regulation would be
more detrimental than the purpose of the regulation;
(5) whether the regulation was designed
solely for the purpose of the protection of the public
and would have the primary effect of protecting the
public; and
(6) any other factors the committee
considers to be appropriate.
(h) A proposed regulation, amendment, or order
of repeal by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, the
Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game, the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission, the office of
victims' rights, or the office of the ombudsman, or an
emergency regulation adopted under AS 44.62.250, are
not subject to suspension under (e) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 4 - 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 24, through page 4, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 44.62.180 is amended to read:
Sec. 44.62.180. Effective date. A regulation or
an order of repeal filed by the lieutenant governor
becomes effective on the 30th day after the date of
filing unless
(1) otherwise specifically provided by the
statute under which the regulation or order of repeal
is adopted, in which event it becomes effective on the
day prescribed by the statute;
(2) it is a regulation prescribing the
organization or procedure of an agency, in which event
it becomes effective upon filing by the lieutenant
governor or upon a later date specified by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(3) it is an emergency regulation or order
of repeal adopted under AS 44.62.250, in which case
the finding and the statement of the facts
constituting the emergency shall be submitted to the
lieutenant governor, together with the emergency
regulation or order of repeal, which, in that event
only, becomes effective upon filing by the lieutenant
governor or upon a later date specified by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(4) a later date is prescribed by the state
agency in a written instrument submitted with, or as
part of, the regulation or order of repeal;
(5) a proposed regulation, amendment, or
order of repeal has been suspended under AS 24.05.182,
in which case, if the proposed regulation, amendment,
or order of repeal takes effect, it takes effect on
the later of
(A) adoption by the agency of an amendment
proposed by a standing committee of the legislature;
or
(B) one day following adjournment of both
houses of the legislature as provided under
AS 44.62.325."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 31, following "legislators":
Insert "and to the presiding officer of each
house"
Page 6, line 4, through page 9, line 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 12. AS 44.62.190(b) is amended to read:
(b) If the form or manner of notice is prescribed
by statute, in addition to the requirements of filing
and furnishing notice under AS 44.62.010 - 44.62.300,
or in addition to the requirements of filing and
mailing notice under other sections of this chapter,
the notice shall be published, posted, mailed, filed,
or otherwise publicized as prescribed by the statute.
In the notice furnished to the legislature under
AS 44.62.190(a)(6), new language added to an existing
regulation shall be underlined, and language deleted
from an existing regulation shall be bracketed and
capitalized.
* Sec. 13. AS 44.62.195 is amended to read:
Sec. 44.62.195. Fiscal notes on regulations. If
the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation has
an economic effect on a department, agency, or person,
the proposed regulation or order of repeal must
include a fiscal note prepared by the department or
agency in accordance with this section [WOULD REQUIRE
INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS BY THE STATE, THE DEPARTMENT
OR AGENCY AFFECTED SHALL PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF THE
APPROPRIATION INCREASE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR FOLLOWING
ADOPTION, AMENDMENT, OR REPEAL OF THE REGULATION AND
FOR AT LEAST TWO SUCCEEDING FISCAL YEARS].
* Sec. 14. AS 44.62.195 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) A fiscal note required under this section
must include, where applicable,
(1) a determination of the present need for
the regulation and the expected need for the
regulation;
(2) a determination of the costs and
benefits of the regulation and an explanation by the
department or agency of whether the proposed
regulation is the most cost-effective, efficient, and
feasible means of allocating public and private
resources to achieve the stated purpose;
(3) the effect of the regulation on market
competition;
(4) the effect of the regulation on the cost
of living, employment, and doing business in the
geographical regions where the regulation would have
the greatest effect;
(5) the source of revenue to implement and
enforce the regulation;
(6) a summary of the short-term and long-
term economic effects of the regulation, including an
analysis of the persons or groups that would bear the
costs of the regulation and the persons or groups that
would benefit directly or indirectly from the
regulation;
(7) the difficulties the department or
agency encountered, if any, in estimating the persons
or groups that would benefit from the regulation or
bear the costs of the regulation;
(8) the effect that adopting or failing to
adopt the regulation would have on the environment and
public health.
* Sec. 15. AS 44.62.245(c) is amended to read:
(c) The state agency shall also send the notice
described in (b)(2) of this section to
(1) a person who has placed the person's
name on a distribution list kept by the agency that
lists persons who want to receive the notice; the
agency may allow a person to request that distribution
of the notice be by electronic means and shall honor
that request if appropriate means are available;
(2) the regulations attorney in the
Department of Law; and
(3) the presiding officer of each house of
the legislature [THE MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE].
* Sec. 16. AS 44.62.320(b) is amended to read:
(b) At the same time a regulation is filed by the
lieutenant governor, the lieutenant governor shall
submit the regulation to the presiding officer of each
house of the legislature [CHAIRMAN AND ALL MEMBERS OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR
REVIEW UNDER AS 24.20.400 - 24.20.460] together with
the fiscal information required to be prepared under
AS 44.62.195.
* Sec. 17. AS 44.62.320(c) is amended to read:
(c) At the same time as a regulation is submitted
to the governor under AS 44.62.040(c), the state
agency shall submit the regulation to the presiding
officer of each house of the legislature [CHAIR AND
ALL MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW UNDER AS 24.20.400 - 24.20.460]
together with the fiscal information required to be
prepared under AS 44.62.195.
* Sec. 18. AS 44.62.320(d) is amended to read:
(d) Within 10 days after receiving a regulation
under (b) or (c) of this section or under
AS 44.62.190(a)(6), the presiding officer of each
house of the legislature shall provide copies of the
regulation to the standing committee with jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the regulation as provided
in the uniform rules of the legislature for review
under AS 24.05.182 [, THE CHAIR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY SUBMIT TO THE
GOVERNOR, BY LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM OR LETTER,
COMMENTS ON THE REGULATION].
* Sec. 19. AS 44.62 is amended by adding a new
section to article 7 to read:
Sec. 44.62.325. Legislative annulment of
regulations. (a) The legislature may, in the regular
legislative session during which a disapproval or
amendment is made or, if the legislature is not in
regular session, the next regular session following
the disapproval or amendment of a proposed regulation,
amendment, or order of repeal by a standing committee
under AS 24.05.182, annul the proposed regulation,
amendment of the proposed regulation, or order of
repeal by law.
(b) If the legislature, following adjournment of
the regular legislative session during which a
disapproval or amendment is made or, if the
legislature is not in regular session, the next
regular session following disapproval or amendment of
a proposed regulation, amendment, or order of repeal
by a standing committee under AS 24.05.182, has not
enacted a law that annuls the proposed regulation,
amendment of the proposed regulation, or order of
repeal, the proposed regulation, amendment of the
proposed regulation, or order of repeal takes effect
one day after adjournment of both houses of the
legislature."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 13:
Delete "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.319) [AS 44.62.040
- 44.62.320]"
Insert "(AS 44.62.040 - 44.62.320)"
Page 9, line 20:
Delete "AS 24.05.182(b), 24.05.182(c),
24.05.182(d);"
Page 9, line 22:
Delete "AS 40.25.120(a)(11); and AS 44.62.320"
Insert "and AS 40.25.120(a)(11)"
[HB 229 was held over.]
HB 351-ADOPTION OF REGS; LIMITATIONS; VOID REGS
8:53:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 351 "An Act relating to adoption of regulations;
and providing for an effective date."
8:53:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, said he would explain the concept of the bill.
8:54:02 AM
JENNA CROUSE, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, was available to testify.
8:546 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:54 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.
8:59:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 351, Version 29-LS1355\E, Nauman,
3/16/16, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purpose of discussion.
8:59:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said he would explain the thought process
to the proposed CS for HB 351, and discuss concerns from the
Department of Law (DOL) in regard to the initial version of HB
351.
9:00:50 AM
MS. CROUSE explained the changes in Section 1 as follows:
subsection (b) was changed to read "A state agency may not
submit, and the lieutenant governor may not accept for filing, a
set of regulations that amend an existing regulation unless"; a
new paragraph (3) was added to subsection (b), which reads "the
regulation is adopted as an emergency regulation"; a new
paragraph (4) was added to subsection (b), which reads "the
regulation implements a state or federal law enacted, amended,
or repealed within 120 days of the adoption of the regulation,
unless that time is extended by the lieutenant governor under AS
44.62.040(d)"; and a new paragraph (5) was added to subsection
(b), which reads "if applicable, the estimated cost under AS
44.62.190(d)(2) and (3) are less than or equal to zero." She
indicated that a new subsection (d) was added to Section 2,
which reads "The lieutenant governor may not accept regulations
submitted under this section that do not comply with AS
44.62.020(b). The lieutenant governor may, in writing and for a
reasonable cause, extend the time for adopting a regulation
implementing a new or amended law under AS 44.62.020(b)(4)."
Ms. Crouse relayed that Section 3 clarifies that the law would
not be retroactive and that Section 4 was unchanged.
9:02:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered that the idea for HB 351 came from
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, who put forward a federal bill called
the RED Tape Act [of 2015]. He explained that the proposed
legislation follows the one-in/one out idea as it relates to
regulations - for every new regulation that is created, there
must be another one removed. He added that also under HB 351,
for every new regulation that is created that has a cost to
government or business, a regulation must be removed to bring
the total cost to government or business to either zero or less
than the previous cost. He stated that Canada and the United
Kingdom, recognizing the importance of not expanding the
footprint of government either on itself or on the private
sector, have implemented similar legislation.
9:04:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if the regulation removed would have to be
within the same state agency that added a regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT responded in the affirmative. He offered
that since the passage of HB 140 during the Twenty-Eighth Alaska
State Legislature, any new regulation must state the fiscal
impact, so cost information is now readily available.
9:06:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT alluded to the changes in the proposed CS
- the exemption of emergency regulations and allowance for
future regulations under new laws. He stated his belief that
any new programs should be created by elected officials within
the legislature and not state departments, in order to limit the
growth of government. He reiterated that the proposed
legislation would check the growth of regulation, and the
proposed CS would limit the costs related to amended
regulations. He further stated that boards or commissions with
statutory authority to cover their own costs through fees would
be exempt from the requirement in HB 351. He also mentioned
that the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and
the Alaska Regulatory Commission (ARC) would be exempt as well.
He added that the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries would
not be exempt, since many of these regulations are offered by
the public, and he opined that the public would be willing to
assist with the reduction of regulations.
9:12:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated he supports the concept of HB 351.
9:12:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed her amazement of the amount
of new legislation created by the legislature. She said she
recognized that regulations are the response to application and
implementation of new laws. She asked if the proposed
legislation would require offsets for all the regulations
created as a result of the many new laws.
9:13:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT maintained that as a legislator he rarely
presents new bills. In response to Representative Spohnholz's
question, he read Section 1(b), "A state agency may not adopt,
and the lieutenant governor may not accept, a new regulation
unless", and he continued with Section 1(b)(4), "the regulation
implements a state or federal law enacted, amended, or repealed
within 120 days of the adoption of the regulation". He added
that the lieutenant governor could be petitioned to extend that
time period.
9:15:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the "marijuana law" was an example of
a new law needing new regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT concurred.
9:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that he could think of a
few scenarios in which HB 351 could put the Board of Fisheries
into a problematic management situation as it reacts to new
fisheries or new gear. He asked if the proposed legislation
would require repealing existing regulations in order to create
new ones required for pioneering a new fishery.
9:17:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT brought up the possibility that there are
outdated Board of Fisheries regulations that could be
eliminated.
9:18:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed there may be old
regulations that are obsolete and could be eliminated. He
mentioned the yearly revisor's bill that serves as an omnibus
review of Board of Fisheries regulations, often resulting in
technical confirming changes to statutes and a purge of outdated
regulations. He opined that he may need more information to
consider the full impact of HB 351.
9:20:11 AM
[The objection for purpose of discussion, made by Representative
Stutes in response to the motion made by Representative Keller
to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 351,
Version 29-LS1355\E.1, Nauman, 3/16/16, as a work draft was
treated as withdrawn. Version E was treated as before the
committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 29-
LS1355\E.1, Nauman, 3/16/16], which read as follows:
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, following line 2:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(c) A state agency may not submit, and the
lieutenant governor may not accept for filing, a set
of regulations that amend an existing regulation
unless
(1) at the time the regulation is submitted
to the lieutenant governor, the estimated net cost of
the set of regulations adopted by the state agency for
each of the costs under AS 44.62.190(d)(2) and (3) is
less than or equal to zero; or
(2) the Department of Commerce, Community,
and Economic Development, or a board or commission,
adopts the regulation for the purpose of amending an
application fee, examination fee, license fee,
registration fee, permit fee, investigation fee, or
other fee for an occupation licensed or regulated
under AS 08.
(d) The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska are
exempt from the requirements of (c) of this section."
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "AS 44.62.020(b)"
Insert "AS 44.62.020"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:20:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated his belief that the proposed legislation would
save much money.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed with Chair Lynn and reiterated that
HB 351 would help check the growth of government and give the
authority to the legislature to decide if and when any future
growth should occur.
CHAIR LYNN declared that every regulation has a cost.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed adding that regulations generate a
cost either to the government or to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT explained that the proposed Amendment 1
would address a potential loophole - increased cost as a result
of amending regulations. He indicated that under the proposed
amendment the increased cost of an amended regulation must also
be offset. Representative Pruitt added that professional
licensing under the Department of Commerce (DOC) would be exempt
in order to amend a regulation to increase fees, and the AOGCC
and RCA would be exempt, as well.
9:24:54 AM
AL TAMAGNI, Leadership Council Chair, National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB), stated his belief that the proposed
legislation has long been needed and would effect not just
businesses but the public.
9:26:12 AM
SCOTT OGAN relayed that when he was with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) he successfully litigated regulations of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) before the Interior Board of
Land Repeals, an administrative law panel within the U.S.
Department of the Interior. He added that DNR consistently
found inconsistencies in the way BLM interpreted regulations,
and DNR won seven out of seven cases. Mr. Ogan mentioned that
during an effort by DNR to digitize the process of getting
permits, it was discovered that the process varied greatly from
region to region. He asserted that the reason interpretation
varied in three different offices was that the regulations were
so vast and ambiguous.
MR. OGAN suggested a change to HB 351, which would add a new
paragraph to Section 1, subsection (b). He read Section 1(b),
"A state agency may not adopt, and the lieutenant governor may
not accept, a new regulation unless" and added his proposed
paragraph after paragraph (5), which read, "the regulation is
narrowly defined as reasonable and necessary to implement the
statute." He claimed that the legislature delegates the
authority to make law to unelected people when it gives the
authority to make a regulation to state agencies. He stated
that he wanted to see sidebars put on that latitude. He added
his belief that, so worded, HB 351 would give businesses and
citizens a little more leverage in court when opposing a
regulation.
9:31:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered support for Mr. Ogan's conceptual
amendment but reported that he needed to consult with
Legislative Legal and Research Services to determine if the term
"narrowly" needs definition or if there is more appropriate
wording.
9:34:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
which would add paragraph (6) to page 2, line 3, to read "unless
the regulation is narrowly defined as reasonable and necessary."
He emphasized that the proposed amendment was conceptual and
subject to wordsmithing by Legislative Legal and Research
Services. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to
HB 351 was adopted.
9:35:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 2 to HB 351] by suggesting the word
"unless" be dropped from the proposed amendment because that
word is already included in Section 1(b). There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 2 on
HB 351 was adopted.
[Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was treated as adopted.]
9:37:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 351, Version 29-
LS1355\E, Nauman, 3/16/16, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 351(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:38:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:38
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1 HB259 ver A.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 259 |
| 2 HB259 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 259 |
| 3 HB259 Fiscal Note-DOT-DES-1-19-16.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 259 |
| 01 HB 351 ver.W.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 02 HB 351 Sponsor Statement ver.W.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 03 HB 351 Sectional Analysis ver.W.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 04 HB 351 NFIB Support Letter.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 05 HB 351 Supporting Documents - Letter from the AK Chamber.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 06 CS HB 351 Summary of Changes Version E.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 07 CS HB 351 Ver E.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 08 CS HB 351 version E Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 10 Keller Amendment A.5 to A.4 CS HB 229 as of 3-16-2016.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 229 |