Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/20/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB27 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 27-REGULATION OF DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES
1:42:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 27, "An Act establishing authority for the
state to evaluate and seek primacy for administering the
regulatory program for dredge and fill activities allowed to
individual states under federal law and relating to the
authority; and providing for an effective date."
1:43:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-
GS1750\A.2, Nauman, 3/19/13, which read, as follows:
Page 4, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 46.03.021. Dredge and fill permitting
program report to the legislature. The commissioner,
in coordination with the commissioner of natural
resources, shall provide to the legislature, on or
before December 31 of each year, an annual report of
the cost of administering the state dredge and fill
permitting program described in AS 46.03.020(14)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:43:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood concerns about the potential
costs for the Section 404 program. She stated it would take
several years for the application to be completed. Amendment 1
requests the department provide an update to the legislature on
the cost of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the department to answer questions.
1:45:17 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), stated he understood the importance of
keeping the legislature apprised of expenditures. However, the
administration doesn't see the need for Amendment 1. He said he
has interpreted the Amendment 1 differently than presented by
Representative Tarr. He understood Amendment 1 would require
the department to provide an annual report of the cost of
administering the state dredge and fill permitting program.
However, the department would not administer the program for 5-
10 years. Prior to expenditures occurring, the department would
request the funding authority from the legislature. If the
intent of Amendment 1 is to have the department provide a
progress report, he responded that the department presents its
budget. Further, to submit a report seemed a little premature
until the information had been gathered, assessed, and
evaluated. Otherwise, the legislature would receive a report
with a lot of contingencies. Although he understood the need
for accountability, he felt this was not necessary.
1:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether the commissioner is
saying that the information would be provided anyway, just to
the Finance Committee rather than the legislature as a whole.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that is correct if the language is
read to report at the beginning of the next calendar year. He
elaborated that the program wouldn't be up and running, but the
department reports details to the Finance committee on its
activities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief this would require
reporting for the previous year, which he understood would be
presented at the time the department requested funding for the
future year. He did not see the necessity of the requirements
in Amendment 1.
1:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern that the fiscal note
spans five years. He further expressed concerned that a process
is being set up which would require $2.5 million each year over
the next four years. He suggested a report on the progress
could be helpful and perhaps Amendment 1 should be changed to
"progress on the analysis of the Section 404 primacy process."
Otherwise, an open-ended $2.5 million commitment exists.
1:50:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would require the annual report to indicate
any progress that has been made on implementing or analyzing
implementation of the 404 permit.
1:50:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion. He said
he is unsure of the sponsor's intent; however, the bill would
authorize the department to investigate whether or not the state
should assume primacy of the 404 program. He didn't think
requesting an annual report about the cost to administer the
state dredge and fill permitting program seemed to correspond.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Amendment 1 is intended to
provide a progress report, as stated by Representative Seaton.
She said the committee has been reviewing the fiscal notes for
the next four years, without knowing the costs to actually
administer the program. She also said the legislature could
consider authorization of funding for positions necessary to
prepare the application; however, if primacy of the 404 program
will mean hiring 40 new staff members, given the current budget
situation, the legislature might decide now is not the time to
do so. Therefore, it might not be wise to consider continuing
with the applications. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to receive
a progress report. In fact, looking back at the department's
work on primacy for 402, at some point the department had to
submit the number of positions. Besides preparing the
application, the department will need to administer the program
and she could see the value to also obtain a fiscal impact for
administering a program.
1:53:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the Conceptual Amendment 1. She
also said on line 7 to add "projected cost" so it would read,
"...annual report of the projected cost of administering the
state dredge and fill permitting program ... ", which is what
she was intending. This would provide the legislature with a
full picture of the 404 process.
1:54:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested Representative Tarr and Representative
Seaton work on the conceptual Amendment.
1:54:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
2:00:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Amendment 1, line 7. He made
a motion to revise Conceptual Amendment 1, which would read,
"Annual report of the progress in the development of assuming
the state dredge and fill permitting program described in AS
46.03.020 (14) and the estimated cost of administration of the
program."
2:01:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a motion was on the floor
for a previous Conceptual Amendment 1 that needs to be withdrawn
prior to proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested he merely wished to clarify the
language for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER objected for discussion purposes. He
understood the intent is to allow the department to indicate
progress on the 404 primacy. He did not want to use an estimate
for the one-year process as the basis for not proceeding with
further evaluation. He clarified he understood it would be a
progress report and not a final decision point. Further, how
accurate an estimate needs to be, he suggested leeway given that
it's a new process.
2:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responding to Co-Chair Saddler, answered
yes, this would be a written progress report on the development
of the 404 permitting process to the legislature. He assured
members it is not his intention that the report must be
complete; rather, the department would submit a progress report
that includes any known estimates.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR echoed that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 is not intended to prevent the application from
going forward, but would provide an opportunity to obtain
additional information for the decision-making process.
2:03:55 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG allowed this body can ask DEC to come back
before it at any point. He expressed several concerns. First,
that any amendment will require the bill to go back to the other
body, yet the information is available to the legislature at any
time. Second, the DEC anticipates by 2015 it will have a good
idea of what primacy would entail and any costs and benefits so
essentially the effect of the amendment is to provide one
additional report prior to the DEC coming before the
legislature. Basically, the DEC would receive funding on July
1, but will report at the end of the calendar year on five-
months of activity. Realistically, the legislature will receive
a solid report on the costs and benefits two years out.
However, if the legislature really wanted additional
information, the DEC could present the committee with an update
at any time it so desires. Finally, while he did not think the
reporting concept is wrong, his concerns stem from the
practicality.
2:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he did not see any provision in the
bill that would requires a final report to the legislature in
2015. In fact, he noted the fiscal note extends to 2019. Even
though it's true that the department can come before the
committee, it's quite different to have a presentation than a
written report that details what has been accomplished to date.
Anyway, as often happens, projects are delayed and Conceptual
Amendment 1 would be in place to require an annual progress
report. Nothing in the amendment affects the program, but it
assumes the fiscal note is "real" and the process is planned to
extend through FY 2019. In conclusion, once the final report is
complete, the reporting would discontinue since the state will
have assumed primacy.
2:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that he did not think it is too
much of a burden to ask for a written report given the amount of
funding involved. Further, the justification to seek primacy is
absent; instead, the arguments are anecdotal. Further, given
the fiscal constraints, the 404 permitting primacy may not
always be a priority [for the department]. Thus it would help
to have accurate information to study to ensure that the state
is making a good investment and moving in the right direction.
He offered his support for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to a question, clarified the
committee is on [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
2:08:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER maintained his objection.
2:08:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson,
Tarr, Tuck, Johnson, Olson, Saddler, and Feige voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 8-0.
2:09:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that Amendment 1, as amended, is before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he voted for the
Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 1 since it would give more
guidance than the original amendment. However, he characterized
the whole bill as a report. To begin with, it seemed to him
that Amendment 1 asks the department to do the legislature's
job. When the department comes before the legislature in a
[Finance] subcommittee, this is the type of information the
committee needs to consider. The subcommittee can always make
recommendations to the finance committee with respect to
funding. Additionally, the department could better spend its
time evaluating the process rather than writing reports.
Further, it doesn't make any sense to him to obtain a five-month
report. In conclusion, the committee just needs to do its job,
he said.
2:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his support for Amendment 1, as
amended, stating it's important to obtain sufficient information
in order to do the job. Moreover, to defer to the subcommittee,
which is a much smaller group not focused on the natural
resources aspects would mean the focus will be on the fiscal
implications, not on the resource policy decision-making
process. Also, the committee would need to specifically request
updates on the 404 permitting. Amendment 1 would ensure that in
future years no matter what the committee membership, a report
will come back to the committee, which is why he supports
Amendment 1.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that unlike the 402 permit process
which was phased in, the 404 permit would be a "hard decision
all at once," which is why it's prudent for the legislature to
have ongoing information to make a solid decision. Also, having
the report would allow the legislature a better opportunity to
evaluate the 404 permitting primacy process. He offered his
support for Amendment 1.
2:12:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said Amendment 1 seems to short-circuit the
process. Again, the whole purpose of the bill is to authorize
the departments to evaluate and formulate information.
Certainly, the commissioners can provide progress reports at any
time. Previously, the committee heard testimony on another bill
that good project management entails planning only once and it
is a costly process to revisit planning. He recalled from water
and air quality permitting processes that the DEC has the
expertise to move forward with the 404 permitting. In the
meantime, the legislature has the opportunity at this point as
well as for the final sanction of the 404 primacy. He said he
was not likely to support Amendment 1.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG clarified that the DEC's fiscal note is for
$1.4 million, which includes the DNR costs via the reimbursable
services agreement (RSA). He pointed out he heard other figures
being used.
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he did not have
anything more to add in terms of the department's position on
Amendment 1.
2:14:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read from the fiscal notes [DEC, fiscal
note 1, Water Quality dated 1/11/2013], for FY 15, at $1,854.3
for eight new employees; DNR, Administration & Support [fiscal
note 2, dated 1/14/2013], for FY 15 at $566.7 with four new
employees. He said that combined, the fiscal impact is close to
$2.5 million. He asked for further clarification.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he believes the fiscal notes are being
wrongly interpreted. He clarified the intent of the fiscal note
is to begin in FY 14 with $1.434.7. He explained the fiscal
note such that DEC would have add five fulltime positions in FY
14 and add three more in FY 15. In FY 14 the personal services
line is for $495.4 which is in the form of an RSA to DNR, and
the amount increases to $883.5 in FY 15. The DNR would add two
new positions in FY 14 and two more positions in FY 15 for a
total of four new positions.
2:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read from the DNR fiscal note, which in FY
15, indicates personal services at $425.6 and a total of $566.7.
He said he was unsure of how this corresponds. Once more, the
overall fiscal impact represents a lot of money when the
legislature is struggling to avoid adding to the state's
operating budget base. He anticipated a report on the $2
million to determine if the [404 primacy] makes sense.
2:17:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood that as DEC proceeds, any
additional funding requests and authorization will have to come
before the legislature.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the short answer is yes, that it would
come before the legislature in terms of budget request for
personnel costs. Additionally, he anticipated requesting
statutory changes as the DEC continues to work with the federal
agencies. On the 402 primacy, the DEC requested two bills, in
addition to budget requests. Again, he anticipated the 404
process would be similar.
2:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not think Amendment 1 is
necessary. She anticipated the DEC would be before the
legislature and viewed additional reporting as onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
2:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that statutory changes might not
have fiscal implications. She recalled the budget subcommittee
process as not allowing for significant detail. She did not
expect the report required under Amendment 1 would be a lengthy
report that would require a significant amount of staff time,
but rather would consist of an executive summary progress report
that would be informative, perhaps prepared in an afternoon.
She identified her frustration with the bill is due to the
missing information. She wished she had some overall estimates
today to help determine whether the [404 primacy] is the right
move. Certainly, given some of the conversations with respect
to fiscal constraints means the legislature will have some tough
decisions to make. This information would assist the
legislature in its decision-making process.
2:21:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated the question is whether Amendment 1, as
amended, should be adopted.
2:21:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Tuck, Seaton,
and Feige voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives Johnson, Olson, Hawker, P. Wilson, and Saddler
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by
a vote of 4-5.
2:23:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER moved to report SB 27 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He stated that only two other states have undergone Section 404
primacy. In fact, every other state has rejected it. Virginia
studied the 404 primacy and reported on it in December 2012. He
recalled that their stakeholders had objected based on the cost
benefit analysis. Equally important, the cost to industry would
be less under the federal program than anticipated under the
state program. Further, the applicants must bear the costs;
however, the state must also acquire substantial staff to
process permits, which is the reason Virginia's stakeholders did
not support it. In any case, the statewide programmatic general
permits were found to provide almost all the benefits without
the costs associated with the assumption of the 404 primacy.
Finally, in Alaska, the DEC already has the ability to issue
statewide programmatic general permits. He preferred the agency
do so rather than go down this "rabbit trail" that could result
in hiring 49 new state employees and spending substantial time
and costs to obtain the 404 primacy for dredge and fill permits.
He suggested that effort could better be spent on statewide
programmatic permits, which will allow for coordination on
federal waters. This bill will not move the state forward or
allow input on the dredge and fill permits. For these reasons,
he opposes passage of SB 27.
2:27:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that Alaska is a
resource development state and its future rests with resource
development. He stated his biggest concern is a fear that the
federal government may grind to a halt. Granted, some people
don't want to see any development in Alaska. Further, it's
difficult to obtain permitting due to staff and costs. However,
Alaska must be prepared to "step into the breach" or resource
development will not happen. He thought that this may be the
first "arrow" the state will be absorbing, but the further along
the path the state is the better it will be. He surmised the
legislature will view the $4 million as the best investment it
has made. In any case, he predicted it wouldn't take much
resource development to make up the cost. For these reasons he
offered his support for SB 27, stating the state needs to
control its own destiny every chance it can. He concluded by
offering his wholehearted support for the state to take control
of its destiny.
2:28:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER echoed Representative Johnson's comments.
He said the language in the bill is permissive. This bill would
permit the executive branch of state government to pursue the
404 primacy, to review and study it to determine whether it is
the best course of action for the state. In fact, this bill
does not establish a 404 permit program. It does not mandate
that the state adopt a program. For all the reasons
Representative Johnson mentioned, this appropriating body ought
to investigate this avenue or the legislature will never know
[if it should have pursued the 404 primacy]. He offered his
support for SB 27 because he agrees the legislature should be
considering its future. He emphasized that once a decision is
made to implement a program - if it is made - it will still
require an appropriation and funding. At the end of the day,
the legislature still holds the purse strings. It is not "our
last bite at the apple" but will move a very important, very
sound, and very wise process forward.
2:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his belief that some of the comments
made would also be good arguments for Coastal Zone Management,
which the state did have control over at one time. In fact, the
state was able to make decisions "in our own backyards" on
projects that were moving forward. He worried that the trend
has been going the other way instead of taking control of the
state. While he isn't opposed to taking control, right now he
doesn't feel like the committee has enough information to
justify spending so much money [on the 404 primacy]. Besides,
the state doesn't have information on the federal backlog and
how much of the federal backlog the state could control or
reduce even if the state does have the 404 primacy. Moreover,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still has the authority it will
continue to retain so it can override the state at any time. At
this time, he couldn't support the bill because he needs more
information. Finally, the state is not exercising statewide
programmatic general permits, which could reduce part of the
backlog, and is the first step the state should take. The
department has the authority to issue statewide programmatic
general permits and it should do so. "Taking such a big bite
into growing state government" and doing something the federal
government is already doing doesn't make sense, he said.
2:32:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER commented he wondered what the state's founding
fathers would have thought if it had been said it would be
cheaper to let them manage the fish traps. Specifically, with
the amount of wetlands the state has, Alaska is a special case.
With the critical nature of permitting wetlands dredge and fill
activities in Alaska, as well as the importance it is to the
primary revenue generator, it seems prudent to "give a hard
look" at the benefits and costs of assuming wetlands primacy
under Section 404. First, the state has undergone this process
successfully for water quality and air quality. Second, it
would result in fewer departments for coordination purposes.
Third, it would result in Alaska-based decisions, which would
not be less strict than the federal standards. Fourth, Alaska
courts would adjudicate disputes, and finally, the mitigation
measures would be Alaska-designed measures. Granted, the state
will be giving the departments significant funding to perform a
difficult job, but the [departments] anticipate "good answers"
and "good information" to inform the legislature as it moves
forward. For these reasons, he offered his support for SB 27.
2:33:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that unfortunately the committee
did not hear from the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] but nearly
80 percent of the Corps' individual permits are granted within
120 days and less than "one percent of one percent" of all
permits has been denied. Therefore, the idea that the Corps'
program is not working is questionable. She recalled the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association letter [dated February 4, 2013], which
read, "And while a majority of the nation's wetland are in
Alaska, many of these may be non-assumable by the State under
the Clean Water Act's geographical limitations and would remain
subject to federal jurisdiction and duplicative Corps
permitting." Furthermore, the legislature did not receive
answers about where this process would apply. Although she
spent time on their website, she couldn't find many areas this
bill would apply. Even the CD-5 example brought up several
times would not have been impacted by this bill since it would
still be under federal jurisdiction. Generally, she wished that
the committee had more information on where this would apply.
She pointed out the individuals in the Alaska U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers office making these decisions are Alaskans, they
understand Alaska's issues and development, which is why she
surmised the success rate is so high. Besides, she didn't think
the system is broken. While she could have supported the bill
with the amendment since it would give the legislature more
information as the state moves forward, she said she is not
comfortable with the expenditure with so much uncertainty about
the commitment.
2:35:23 PM
COMMISSIONER FOGELS asked to respond to some of the points
raised. First, whether a problem exists: yes there is a huge
problem, such that a federal agency controls permitting on one
of the most important sectors of our lands. On the contrary, it
is not about the Corps' backlog. Even if the Corps had a zero
backlog, the state should be looking at the costs and benefits
of assuming the 404 primacy. In fact, this is about Alaskans
having control, with Alaska's agencies having control over
permitting of natural resource development in Alaska, and having
those challenges resolved in Alaska and not in Washington D.C.
In terms of the concerns about limited wetland exclusions, it is
a big issue, he said.
2:36:12 PM
COMMISSIONER FOGELS emphasized the committee must understand the
DNR/DEC will go into this 404 process with a strong position
that the state will receive primacy over most of the wetlands in
Alaska. In fact, the EPA has in past guidance documents
basically agreed. He read from a 1980 document specifically
addressed to primacy for states. He read, "By assuming the 404
program, states will gain clear jurisdiction on most of the
nations' lakes, small rivers, streams, and inland wetlands."
Consequently, the state believes it will gain jurisdiction over
most of the wetlands in Alaska, which is very significant.
COMMISSIONER FOGELS, with respect to the state programmatic
general permits and the reason to pursue primacy, the answer is
simple. The state programmatic general permits represent a
different tool for a different purpose; however, primacy is a
different tool. He stressed that wetlands permitting in Alaska
is very complex and primacy is only one tool. He highlighted
that this bill's fiscal note will allow the state to pursue the
opportunity to seek the other tools, as well as primacy. At the
end of the day, if the state decides not to "go for primacy" the
state will still have hopefully acquired some of the other tools
and the state will benefit greatly.
2:38:06 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG, with respect to some of the comparisons to
Virginia and other states that have not pursued the 404 primacy,
related the deputy commissioner is currently attending a
conference underway in Washington D.C. state wetland
administrators and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The topic
of this conference is how to obtain primacy and numerous states
are actively pursuing this. This isn't something that "everyone
else" looked at and rejected. He pointed out that states like
Virginia have considerably less wetlands than in Alaska. He
surmised that fewer permits are being sought in Virginia than in
Alaska so this tool would have less value to Virginia. This
bill considers what Alaska needs, but not from the perspective
of Virginia or Oregon. He concluded that Alaska should not
compare itself to other states.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said he does not care how other states do it.
The legislature's job is to look at what's best for Alaska and
the question of whether or not to seek the 404 primacy is a
worthy question to consider. He acknowledged a number of
options have been raised in testimony, which have advantages and
disadvantages. However, Alaska is a resource development state
and projects are part of Alaska's future. In conclusion, he
said that the status of 404 permitting program will have an
impact on those projects.
2:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
2:40:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hawker, Johnson,
Olson, P. Wilson, and Feige voted in favor of reporting SB 27
out of the House Resources Standing Committee. Representatives
Tarr, Tuck, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore, SB 27 was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB27 Virginia 404 Feasibility Study 2012.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 USACE-Alaska Legislative Briefing 2.28.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 DEC Response to HRES 3.19.2013.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 Amendment A.2.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| HRES HB 158 Amend A.4.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 9.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES CSHB158 3.20.13.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |