Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/06/2017 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB114 | |
| HB121 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to occupational safety and health
enforcement penalties; and providing for an effective
date."
9:16:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, SPONSOR, explained the bill that
would make changes to the state's occupational safety and
health regulations in order to comply with federal law.
Federal law recently increased the minimum penalties
needing to be assessed. He detailed that because Alaska was
a designated jurisdiction, meaning it had its own
responsibility for its occupational safety and health
program, it was necessary for the state to update its
program in order to comply with federal law. The bill would
allow the department to continue to adopt regulations as
federal law changed in order to ensure the state was
meeting the minimum standard. He relayed that the burden on
companies was not increased due to the increase in
standard. He elaborated there were existing penalty
requirements. When penalties were assessed generally the
state assessed about 10 percent of the allowable penalty,
but the minimum standards were necessary. Without the
minimum standards and without compliance with federal law,
the state ran the risk of losing its designation for the
jurisdiction and the program could go back to the federal
government. He explained that going back to the federal
government would mean that State of Alaska employees would
no longer be covered under workers' compensation and the
Alaska program had some specific Alaska components for
occupational safety and health, which would be lost by
going to the federal program.
9:19:08 AM
Representative Wilson noted there had been a question and
answer sheet that was not included in members' packets. She
read a question that had been asked in the House Judiciary
Committee: How much would the state save if Alaska's
occupational safety and health jurisdiction was returned to
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)? She noted that the answer had been $619,000;
however, penalty revenue would go to the federal treasury
instead of the state General Fund totaling $1,031,000,
which would result in a net loss to the state of $412,000.
She was in favor of keeping programs under state
jurisdiction, but she was concerned about keeping a program
because the state could collect penalties on businesses.
She appreciated the email the committee had received with
more explanation. She wondered if people were breaking the
laws. She asked where the $1 million came from.
DEBORAH KELLY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND
SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
referred to the fiscal note from the department. Currently
the department collected approximately $600,000 in
penalties per fiscal year. With the approximately 78
percent increase, the department estimated the collection
amount would increase by about $435,000 per year, for a
total of about $1 million in penalties. The penalties were
not optional - they were either collected by the state or
eventually the federal takeover would come in and collect
the penalties. The $619,000 was the savings in state funds
from the elimination of the positions and the travel and
other associated costs for the enforcement program. When
the savings were subtracted from the loss of the penalty
amount it resulted in $412,000. She spoke to collecting
penalties on businesses in Alaska. She relayed that most
businesses tried to do the right thing. The department
conducted a significant number of inspections every year.
She relayed the department was out in the community, across
industries, seeing businesses every day. Many times when
violations were found, the penalties were reduced sometimes
down to zero based on small business size or good faith
efforts on the part of the company. She relayed that the
department was not generally seeing numerous violations,
which was the reason it collected less than 10 percent of
the maximum allowable penalties in the course of a year.
Representative Wilson wondered if the $596,000 was an
average or the figure from the preceding year. She observed
the figure did not capture the increase. She hoped things
were improving as the department was working to educate
businesses.
9:23:02 AM
Ms. Kelly replied that the $596,000 was the amount from FY
16. The numbers fluctuated from year-to-year, but not so
significantly for the department to calculate an average.
The department was targeting its consultation efforts to
try to reduce the number of violations and hopefully
penalties.
Vice-Chair Gara understood that under federal law the
penalties had to be adjusted for inflation; however, they
had not been adjusted for inflation since 1990, which
resulted in the penalty change.
Ms. Kelly answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that most businesses did the right
thing. In the past he had represented an individual who had
been killed due to an unsafe work environment and another
individual who had almost been killed due to an unsafe work
environment.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the
bill would allow the department to make adjustments based
on the federal specifications without requiring additional
legislative action in the future. He spoke to giving an
agency authority that was legislative authority and asked
if it was an issue with the topic at hand.
Ms. Kelly replied that the department would be allowed to
make adjustments in accordance with federal penalty
amounts. In order to address that the department was being
given regulatory authority, the bill included language that
the department would be limited to the corresponding
federal penalty amounts for each violation type. The
department was not being given the authority to decide what
penalty amount it wanted - it could not go above and beyond
the corresponding federal penalty.
9:25:53 AM
Representative Guttenberg remarked that Ms. Kelly had
identified the $596,000 as fairly standard. He asked the
department whether it had looked at the number of OSHA
inspectors it had, how many penalties there had been, and
whether the number of penalties had changed with the number
of employees the department had doing the work. He knew
that the department had lost numerous employees over the
years and that General Fund dollars had become tighter.
Ms. Kelly responded she would have to follow up with the
numbers. There had been some small personnel changes over
the years, but it had been relatively steady.
Representative Tilton referred to the inspections done by
the department. She asked if the $596,000 was an
accumulation of mostly small fines or larger ones.
Ms. Kelly answered she would have to follow up to answer
the question in an exact sense. There were many small
penalties assessed over the course of a year. The
department did roughly 400 enforcement inspections annually
and each one of the inspections may or may not result in a
penalty. Penalties were generally small, the exception came
when a particularly egregious violator was identified such
as the trench collapse that had been in the news a couple
of years earlier. She detailed that there had been an
attempt to dig a young man out with heavy equipment, which
had resulted in a substantial penalty.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed the one fiscal note from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development. It was
anticipated increase of $217,500 in FY 18 and $435,000
annually thereafter in penalty revenue to the state.
Representative Wilson clarified that the revenue would
occur only if the penalties were fined. She explained that
the figure in the fiscal note was an estimate only. She
surmised the amount was unknown and hoped the department
would not be writing numerous citations because things were
going well in the business community.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HB 121 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, HB 121 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (LWF).
9:30:49 AM
AT EASE
9:32:35 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB120 summary statement (03.31.17).pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 - Presentation for House Finance (04.06.17).pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB114 Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 114 |
| HB114 Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 114 |
| HB121 Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Support Document - Federal memo to state plans 02.23.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB141 - Supporting Testimony - Maniilaq Association.PDF |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 141 |
| HB121 Additional Document-Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 3.10.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/6/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |