Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2018 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2018
9:44 a.m.
9:44:50 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:44 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz, Sponsor; Mary Hakala, Staff,
Representative Dan Ortiz; Sam Rabung, Chief, Statewide
Aquaculture Planning and Permitting, Department of Fish and
Game; Ginny Eckert, Professor College of Fisheries and
Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Representative Sam Kito, Sponsor; Deborah Kelly, Director,
Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development; Caitlyn Ellis, Staff,
Representative Sam Kito.
SUMMARY
HB 121 OCC. HEALTH AND SAFETY CIVIL PENALTIES
HB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 128 SHELLFISH ENHANCE. PROJECTS; HATCHERIES
HB 128 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Fish and Game, one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Fish and Game, and one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits; and
providing for an effective date."
9:45:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted the history of the bill in
committee.
9:46:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
9:46:51 AM
MARY HAKALA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, introduced
herself.
Representative Ortiz stated that the bill dealt with
shellfish enhancement projects, and set up the regulatory
framework for the mariculture industry. He announced that
the bill was a priority for the Mariculture Task Force that
had worked for two years to present a cohesive, well-
considered plan to move mariculture forward in the state.
He shared that the bill was an important component of the
plan, and was excited about the economic opportunities
presented within the bill. He thanked Senator Stevens for
being a cosponsor of the bill, and for carrying mirror
legislation in the Senate.
Senator Olson queried any opposition to the fee.
Representative Ortiz stated that the increase in the fee
was due to an unchanged fee in the past. He stated that he
had not heard concern about the fee increase from the
industry. He felt that there would not be a restriction in
accessing the funds.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the bill addressed any
for-profit organizations. Representative Ortiz replied that
the enhancement organizations had been historically
nonprofit organizations. He asserted that he was not
opposed to profit-based organizations in the industry.
9:50:42 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered how the nonprofit and for profit
organizations interact through the cycle of a biological
species. Ms. Hakala stressed that the bill related to only
nonprofit organizations, and mirrored the salmon
enhancement statutes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there were some questions
from Department of Fish and Game (DFG). She remarked that
there would be questions about the cost recovery fishery in
the bill. She asked for a contemplation about crabs. She
noted that there were different creatures that reproduced
differently, and were different than the salmon
enhancement.
9:54:29 AM
SAM RABUNG, CHIEF, STATEWIDE AQUACULTURE PLANNING AND
PERMITTING, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, introduced
himself.
Senator von Imhof remarked that she was concerned about
when it was appropriate for the state to insert itself into
a commercially viable profit cycle. She noted that there
was a point in this industry where there was not commercial
viability, so perhaps a kickstart was a requirement. She
wondered why no commercial entity would insert itself into
the niche that the state sought to fill. Mr. Rabung replied
that the bill was modeled after the salmon fishery
enhancement bill, which had been law since 1974. The model
was developed because the fisheries resources of the state
were owned by all the people of the state. He shared that
allowing enhancement programs be for profit allowed an
ownership aspect. He stated that the for profit aspect came
in during harvest, therefore anything produced by the
programs were available for all of the common property
fisheries of the state. He noted that the nonprofit
corporations must pay taxes, and operated similarly to a
for profit with the exception of the ability to pay
dividends.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered whether the nonprofit
corporation employed an Alaskan workforce. Mr. Rabung
replied in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche noted that the bill set a regulatory
framework for some species that were either challenged in
production or were new commercially. He queried the
function of the bill. Mr. Rabung replied that the bill
enabled several models of fisheries enhancement.
Senator Micciche asserted that the reason for the bill
allowed for the regulation of the new species. Mr. Rabung
agreed.
10:01:35 AM
AT EASE
10:03:36 AM
RECONVENED
10:03:43 AM
Senator Stevens queried similarities in other parts of the
world. Mr. Rabung replied that there were similar behaviors
in other parts of the world, but Alaska was very unique. He
noted that Alaska had high sideboards in the salmon
enhancement program. Alaska was restricted to using local
genetically appropriate stocks for each projects. He
furthered that there was no breeding. He remarked that
there were other very stringent health policies. He
stressed that there was no empirical evidence of any harm
to natural production to salmon from the salmon fishery
enhancement program. He stressed that there was an ability
to maintain sustainability certifications.
10:05:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried feedback about invasive species
in Alaskan waters.
Senator Micciche asked about monitoring of the health and
disease in the raising process prior to release. Mr. Rabung
replied that there was a stringent fish health policy. He
stated that it specifically dealt with practices and
disease prevention, and monitoring for all species. The
species must be inspected and approved before release. He
noted that there were pathology labs in Juneau and
Anchorage that processed every sample.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced the current discussion for the
children in the audience.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the species who would be in the
enhancement project.
10:11:33 AM
GINNY ECKERT, PROFESSOR COLLEGE OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, (UAF) replied
that the bill applied to shellfish. She stated that the
definition was in the bill as a species of crustacean
mollusk or other invertebrate in any stage of its life
cycle that was indigenous to state waters, and excluded any
invasive species. She stated that any species of crab and
clam would fall into that category.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how to prioritize approval toward
a species that might be closed to harvesting in Alaskan
waters. Mr. Rabung replied that it was designed to be a
user-driven project. He stressed that the department would
not take action until there was an application. He noted
that there would be guidance about the appropriate review
process, which was the same as salmon.
Vice-Chair Bishop queried the work of Ms. Eckert. Ms.
Eckert replied that she worked as faculty at the
university. She explained that faculty taught classes,
conducted research, and provided service. She shared that
she had done research on king crab, and their early life
history to determine rehabilitation.
10:15:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was a predator problem
on shellfish. She remarked that there was an attempt to get
national attention especially about abalone. She noted that
the otters were causing an unsustainability. Ms. Eckert
replied shared that she had conducted research on sea otter
diets, and the complex ecological interactions. She
remarked that there had to be an examination of where to do
the enhancement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the review process
would include a geographic location of the application. Mr.
Rabung replied that each project would be assessed locally.
The projects were intended to enhance localized fisheries,
and would be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Senator Micciche noted that there were public opportunities
in the process. Mr. Rabung responded that there was no
ownership of the resource until harvest.
Senator Micciche stressed that it was heartbreaking when
batches were required to be destroyed.
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal notes.
10:23:33 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT HB 128 from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 128 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Fish and Game, one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Fish and Game, and one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
10:23:46 AM
AT EASE
10:26:05 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to occupational safety and health
enforcement penalties; and providing for an effective
date."
10:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation:
House Bill 121 brings Alaska's Occupational Safety and
Health (AKOSH) state plan into compliance with federal
requirements, ensuring continued eligibility for
federal grant funds and helping to protect workers
from workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.
In 2015, Congress passed the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act, requiring
many federal agencies to adjust penalties for
inflation going back to 1990, and requiring subsequent
yearly adjustments according to changes in the
Consumer Price Index. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration complied by adjusting their maximum
penalties in July 2016, including a six-month grace
period for states to comply. In order to comply with
federal program requirements, AKOSH must have at least
equivalent maximum and minimum penalties. AKOSH fell
out of compliance with this requirement on January 1,
2017, when the six-month buffer period expired.
Maximum and minimum penalties for violations of
Alaska's occupational safety and health laws are
specified in AS 18.60.095, the Penalties section of
Prevention of Accident and Health Hazards. House Bill
121 allows the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development to set penalty amounts by regulation, and
limits the penalties to corresponding federal maximums
for each violation type. This enables the department
to adjust to federally required changes while placing
a cap on increases.
10:28:05 AM
DEBORAH KELLY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
(DLWD) explained that in 2015 congress passed an inflation-
adjustment act that required many agencies to adjust their
penalties for inflation. She stated that in 2016 the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
adjusted their maximum penalties, and required state plans
to do the same. She stated that Alaska was required to
follow suit by January 1, 2017. She explained that the bill
brought the state into compliance by requiring the
department to set the maximum OSHA penalties by regulation,
and capped those maximum penalties at the corresponding
federal levels. She stressed that the bill allowed the
state to come into compliance with federal requirement, and
to stay in compliance with the yearly required adjustments
by the CPI.
Senator von Imhof noted the three types of violations on
the fact sheet for the current maximum penalty and the new
maximum penalty. She asked whether it was Alaska data, and
whether there were additional issues in the bill. Ms. Kelly
replied that the fact sheet was from the year prior, so the
number was adjusted in the fiscal note. She remarked that
each bill section was a different category. She stated that
the categories: willful and repeat violations, serious
violations, other than serious violations, failure to
correct a violation, and posting requirement violations.
Senator von Imhof requested a one-page table of the
categories, the fee penalties, and the range of the state's
noncompliance. She noted that there was an assertion that
the state would save $619 in state funds. She asked for
more information. Ms. Kelly replied that it was $619,000
yearly that the state would lose in state funds by
reverting the enforcement program to federal OSHA.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the net loss meant that
the state was not paying the penalties or was the state
receiving revenues. Ms. Kelly replied that the cost savings
would be in the reduction of the personal services and
associated costs. The penalties would go to the federal
treasury rather than the state penalty. Therefore, the
reference was to the state funds and not private business.
Senator von Imhof surmised that the reference was about
noncompliance with the federal government. Ms. Kelly
replied, "broadly yes."
Senator Micciche asserted that moving jurisdiction to the
federal government would not result in "noncompliance." Ms.
Kelly replied that the decision to have a state plan was
always up to the state.
Senator Micciche wondered whether the $1.31 million was a
constant, and whether it was an average over ten years. Ms.
Kelly replied that she believed that it was a three-year
average. She stated that there was a calculation based on
the actuals for, she believed, three years. She noted that
they varied year to year, because one case could add or
subtract $100,000 penalty amount for the year.
10:35:10 AM
AT EASE
10:36:03 AM
RECONVENED
10:36:05 AM
Ms. Kelly stated that the numbers in the letter were from
the fiscal note from the previous year, and the number used
the FY 16 actual penalties collected. The current year's
fiscal noted used a two-year average of the previous year
and FY 16.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the reason for the inconsistency
in the number of years. Ms. Kelly replied that there was a
desire to use as many fiscal years as possible, but because
of the IRIS migration there was a desire for a consistent
number; therefore, a maximum number of years was used under
the new financial accounting system.
Vice-Chair Bishop remarked that there was state control, so
the OSHA standards must be met at a minimum. The state
standards could be higher than the OSHA standards. He felt
that the bill was a housekeeping issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the state was not in
compliance, so queried the federal government's reaction to
the noncompliance. She recalled that the sponsor suggested
a consequence of inaction, like withholding federal
financial support. Ms. Kelly replied that the out of
compliance date was January 1, 2017. The federal government
noted that the state was working toward a solution, so
there was understanding in the meantime.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the federal government
required that it be in regulation, rather than statute, for
setting a fine. Ms. Kelly replied in the negative. She
stated that the regulatory avenue seemed like the most
practical way to make yearly adjustments.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was consternation
related to determining regulations rather than statutes.
She queried the reason for choosing regulations rather than
a statutory change. Representative Kito replied that the
federal government was requesting that agencies tracked the
consumer price index (CPI), and adjust the penalties to
adjust to modifications of the CPI. He remarked that it was
unknown whether that examination would be on an annual or
other periodic basis. He stated that setting regulation
allowed for streamlined adjustments.
10:44:00 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the department could not
exceed the minimum set by the federal government.
Representative Kito agreed.
Senator Micciche looked at Section 6, page 3, lines 1
through 3, which did not cover the minimum. He noted that
the minimum was giving under the purview of the
commissioner. He wondered why there was not a matching of
the two.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed, and stated that she had already
asked that question. She wondered whether the minimum was
the maximum.
Representative Kito deferred to Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly explained that the minimum penalty in statute was
the only minimum penalty. She stated that most of the
minimum penalties were zero, except for the single willful
violation minimum penalty.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested a sectional analysis.
10:47:06 AM
CAITLYN ELLIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, presented
the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Amends AS 18.60.095 (a) to establish that the maximum
and minimum civil penalties the commissioner may
assess an employer for a willful or repeat violation
of occupational safety and health provisions shall be
set by regulation under a new section (i) added by
this bill.
Section 2
Amends AS 18.60.095 (b) to establish that the maximum
civil penalty the commissioner may assess an employer
for a serious violation of occupational safety and
health provisions shall be set by regulation under a
new section (i) added by this bill.
Section 3
Amends AS 18.60.095 (c) to establish that the maximum
civil penalty the commissioner may assess an employer
for an other than serious violation of occupational
safety and health provisions shall be set by
regulation under a new section (i) added by this bill.
Section 4
Amends AS 18.60.095 (d) to establish that the maximum
civil penalty the commissioner may assess an employer
who fails to correct a violation of occupational
safety and health provisions shall be set by
regulation under a new section (i) added by this bill.
Section 5
Amends AS 18.60.095 (g) to establish that the maximum
civil penalty the commissioner may assess an employer
for violations of posting requirements shall be set by
regulation under a new section (i) added by this bill.
Section 6
Amends AS 18.60.095 by adding a new subsection (i)
that directs the commissioner to establish by
regulation the maximum civil penalty amounts to be
imposed under (a) (d) and (g) of this section and
the minimum imposed under (a). It stipulates that the
maximum civil penalties may not be greater than the
corresponding federal penalties and must include
adjustments to correlate with inflation rates as
specified under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
Section 7
Establishes that this Act applies to violations
occurring on or after the effective date of this Act.
Section 8
Allows the department to adopt regulations necessary
to implement this Act.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the CPI would affect a
rate increasing or decreasing. Ms. Ellis replied in the
affirmative, stating that it would be adjusted on annual
basis accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for agreement. Ms. Kelly replied
in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Bishop surmised that it could not exceed the
federal maximum penalties. Ms. Kelly agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed committee business.
SB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:51:03 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 121 - Additional Document - Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 3.10.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Support Document - Federal memo to state plans 02.23.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Supporting Document-OSHA Fact Sheet 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121-DOLWD Response to SFIN 4.11.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |