HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS  7:53:48 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an effective date." 7:53:58 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled AM - 1, 2/14/18, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 7, following "law,": Insert "(1)" Page 2, line 11, following "public": Insert "; (2) the Department of Environmental Conservation shall, at the request of the Department of Natural Resources, disclose to the Department of Natural Resources records necessary to implement programs of the Department of Natural Resources designed to increase consumer awareness and consumption of Alaska agriculture products identified by the "Alaska Grown" trademark; the Department of Natural Resources shall maintain confidentiality of the records disclosed under this paragraph" CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes. 7:54:33 PM CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that Amendment 1, proposed at the request of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), would allow DEC to share with DNR information from animal importation records held by the Office of the State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, DEC; said information would allow the Division of Agriculture, DNR, to verify the eligibility of Alaska meat producers who are participating in the Alaska Grown program [administered by the Division of Agriculture, DNR]. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON questioned whether the purpose of Amendment 1 would be to place this authority in the proper statute. MS. CARPENTER said correct. Sharing the aforementioned information would allow DNR to verify when, or if, an animal was imported to confirm whether the animal or animals are eligible for the certification. CO-CHAIR TARR related her understanding that imported animals have been sold as Alaska Grown, although they have not been living in the state for 51 percent of their lifetime; Amendment 1 would protect the brand. 7:57:29 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection to Amendment 1. There followed a short discussion describing how Amendment 1 would be incorporated into the bill. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there would be testimony from the Division of Agriculture, DNR, or Farm Bureau, Inc., regarding the amendment. MS. CARPENTER restated the amendment was requested by DNR and is supported by DNR. CO-CHAIR TARR clarified the Division of Agriculture is a division of DNR. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 7:59:44 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled AM - 2 to HB 315, 2/23/2015, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, line 11, following "individual;": Insert "or" Page 2, lines 5 - 6: Delete"; or (3) are trade secrets or proprietary business or financial information" Page 2, line 9: Delete "any records that are" Insert "information from a record" Page 2, line 11, following "public": Insert "and that disclosure of the information is necessary to address a threat to the health or safety of the animal, crop, or public" CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes. 8:00:08 PM MS. CARPENTER said Amendment 2 was requested by stakeholders who are concerned about DNR releasing proprietary business information or trade secrets; the amendment deletes language specific to releasing business information. Also, Amendment 2 expands proposed [subsection] (b) to clarify only information from records, and not actual records, may be disclosed in the event of a public health risk. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised in a public health event, [DNR and /or DEC] would paraphrase or summarize the needed information. MS. CARPENTER said correct. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said lines 9 and 10 of Amendment 2 imply there would be a redaction of records and asked for an estimate of the staff hours needed to do so. MS. CARPENTER said she was unsure; however, DEC is already in the practice of redacting and summarizing information for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other entities thus no additional staff hours would be required. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 2, lines 7-11, which read: (b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section or any other provision of law, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources may disclose any records that are subject to this section if the Department of Environmental Conservation or the Department of Natural Resources determines there is a threat to the health or safety of an animal, a crop, or the public. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to lines 13 and 14 of Amendment 2 and asked whether the amendment brings any change to the standard of proof by adding that the disclosure of the information is necessary to address the threat. MS. CARPENTER said the department seeks to further limit the release of said disclosure to only "when necessary." 8:05:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether changing the language of the bill on page 2, line 9, from "may" disclose to "shall" disclose would allow the department to "better exercise the discretion that already exists within this proposed legislation?" MS. CARPENTER agreed. She said, "... it would further limit the information that we would have to disclose ... [and] it would raise the bar on what ... would be disclosed in the event of a public health threat." REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned the purpose of Amendment 2 because the language in the bill is already permissive, rather than prescriptive. CO-CHAIR TARR remarked: As I understand it, is, what's being deleted, the "trade secrets or proprietary business or financial information," that's the part that stakeholders have concerns about, and this is an attempt to eliminate that concern, but also have the space to release the records. MS. CARPENTER said correct. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out section 1 of HB 315 does not contain a reference to "the disclosure of necessary information" and opined the intent of the amendment was to do so. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked, "Could the state be taken to court over the point of whether or not a piece of information was actually necessary?" MS. CARPENTER deferred to the Department of Law (DOL). 8:08:39 PM JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division(Anchorage), DOL, restated Representative Parish's question. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH clarification his question. MS. CURRIE opined any statute is subject to interpretation and thus the state could be subject to a lawsuit; however, in this regard, because the statute is centered on the discretion of the Office of the State Veterinarian, the necessity of the disclosure would be given discretion. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised in a lawsuit that alleges a breach in the release of information, the plaintiff would have to show damages, which would be difficult. MS. CURRIE said correct and added that damages would need to be enough to support a lawsuit. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON directed attention to the bill on page 2, line 11, [text previously provided] and questioned whether the language "an animal" could mean any animal. MS. CURRIE answered yes. 8:11:54 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH objected to Amendment 2. He opined the amendment would leave the state exposed to additional liability. Representative Parish removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. CO-CHAIR TARR asked for discussion on HB 315, as amended. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Dr. Gerlach if there were any problems in terms of business or trade secrets for farmers importing farm animals, or with the information that the Office of the State Veterinarian would have to disclose. 8:13:53 PM ROBERT GERLACH, VMD, State Veterinarian, Office of the State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, DEC, answered he did not believe the amendments would affect the business of livestock producers who import animals into the state. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked for clarification on how an animal gets approved to be imported into the state, and whether importation is approved solely by DEC or also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). DR. GERLACH explained an animal traveling on land would need to meet the Canadian requirements necessary to enter Canada, and meet USDA requirements to leave the U.S., enter another country and then reenter the U.S., in addition to Alaska's requirements. If an animal is flown in, or travels to Alaska via the Alaska Marine Highway System, the animal would need to meet state and port regulations. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO surmised a multitude of regulations must be met for an animal transported via land-based transportation. DR. GERLACH answered yes. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether it is legal to import domestic animals that may have a disease. DR. GERLACH answered no. The state relies on the veterinarian at the source of origin to assess an animal; he acknowledged the possibility an animal might not have symptoms of an illness but is harboring a pathogen. If there is a concern, the state relies on diagnostic testing. He reiterated all animals can harbor certain pathogens and could transport them; it is not possible to test for every known pathogen, so the state uses testing regulations to address those of primary concern which would pose a threat to the health and welfare of domestic animals or wildlife in Alaska. 8:17:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the actions of DEC, DNR, or the public would be restricted in the presence of an infectious disease. DR. GERLACH advised if animals came into the state and were discovered to have a disease acquired during transport, or exhibited symptoms when they arrived, there would be no restriction on the state's ability to respond in order to prevent the threat of that disease to domestic stock or wildlife, or to public health. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH further inquired as to whether the ability of a member of the general public to inform themselves about potential disease outbreaks would be constrained by this bill. DR. GERLACH assured the committee there is no restriction upon members of the general public; in fact, his office regularly responds to concerns and provides information in this regard. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification on the state's response to a group of animals exhibiting symptoms of disease. DR. GERLACH stated the state's response depends upon the pathogen, its mechanism of transmission, and its threat to domestic stock, wildlife, or public health; for example, an animal exposed to tuberculosis would be quarantined and tested. If there were a high degree of concern, the animal would be returned to its source of origin or euthanized. 8:22:20 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report HB 315, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 315(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.