Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/17/2016 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB259 | |
| HB229 | |
| HB351 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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or repealed within 120 days of the adoption of the regulation,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.
| 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 |