Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/2000 02:20 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(JUD)
An Act relating to regulations; and providing for an
effective date.
HANS NEIDIG, STAFF, SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, stated that SB 24
would reform how administrative regulations are adopted by
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) by
creating a pilot program that places reasonable new limits
on the power of the Department to impose new regulations on
Alaskans.
Mr. Neidig noted that the legislation pertains only to the
Department of Environmental Conservation. The original
scope of the bill has been reduced dramatically in an effort
to single out a department where the measures required in SB
24 could serve as a pilot program. Mr. Neidig added that SB
24 is written in such a way so as to make it easy to broaden
its applicability to other departments in the future.
Mr. Neidig advised that SB 24 increases opportunities for
public notice and comment regarding adoption of DEC
regulations when there is a substantial change to previously
proposed regulations. Also, SB 24 requires that DEC, within
90 days after the effective date of the statute or
amendment, publish notice on their intent to promulgate
regulations for said statute or amendments. It also sets a
2-year time limit for the adoption of regulations.
Regulations adopted by State agencies have the effect of law
similar to statutes adopted by the Legislature. The
regulation adoption process, however, has very few of the
safeguards and opportunities for public input that the
legislative process has. Unlike statutes which require a
series of public hearings in the State House and Senate,
regulations can be adopted with a single notice and hearing
which may or may not even reflect the actual content of the
final version of the regulation.
Mr. Neidig stated that once adopted, State regulations could
only be amended by the agency that adopted them or by the
adoption of a statute that somehow directly conflicts with
the regulation. That makes State regulations in Alaska very
hard to amend or appeal once in place. Entrenched State
bureaucrats, with little incentive to be responsive to the
public, often have more real control over public policy
through regulations than elected State officials. SB 24
begins to make State regulators more accountable to the
public and to elected officials by placing reasonable and
needed restraints on the ever-increasing number of State
regulations Alaskans live with.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that Section 4 was the most
important portion of the bill. He asked if the sponsor had
requested Sections 1-3. Mr. Neidig replied, that language
had been added in the House Judiciary Committee at the
request of Senator Leman in order to streamline the current
system. Mr. Neidig advised that Section "D" was the most
contentious section and the portion that Senator Donley
feels the most strongly about. It would require a State
agency to go back out to public notice if during the second
notice, substantial changes were made to the regulation.
The current standard is to determine whether or not
substantial subject changes were made. There is a new
standard being created indicating that if there is change
the substance of a regulation, then they must return to
public notice. The interpretation of notice is broad. Mr.
Neidig reiterated that is where the disagreement lies and
that information must be published.
Co-Chair Therriault understood that the Department might not
want to be removed from the loop. Representative Phillips
voiced concern that if the agency makes changes and the
public is noticed, there would be no recourse or penalty.
Mr. Neidig replied that in previous versions of the bill,
there was recourse; however, and through all the testimony
taken, many of those issues have been deleted in an attempt
to establish a reasonable pilot program.
Representative J. Davies asked what was broken in the
current system. Mr. Neidig stated that public testimony
and/or opportunity has not been provided to the public
regarding changes to regulations.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 120, Side 2).
Representative Phillips asked if the newspaper and publisher
industry were comfortable with the proposed language. Mr.
Neidig replied that language was one of the five sections
which had been added by the House Judiciary Committee. At
the last meeting, the last two sections were withdrawn.
There remains only one reference at this time.
PAMELA LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, testified in support of the legislation. She voiced
frustration in how the bill has been protested by the
various agencies. Ms. LaBolle noted that businesses have
three complaints about the current regulation process:
? Sometimes the regulations are over-reaching or
little resemblance the original statute;
? Changes have been made during the process, which
has significantly altered what the regulations is
suppose to be about; and
? Complaints have been made regarding the excessive
amount of time to create regulations.
Originally, the bill covered several agencies. During the
last year in the Senate, it had over 20 hearings. She noted
that it has been reduced to a pilot project just for DEC
because that is the Department where the most concerns have
been voiced. Ms. LaBolle urged that what is left of the
bill should be adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that this legislation could be
classified as the "evil department" theory. Co-Chair
Therriault stated that there is a rate fee being established
and stated that what was left of the bill caused him
concern. He believed that it could be used to delay things.
Representative Phillips stated that regulatory reform has
been a concern of the Legislature for many years. She asked
the argument against leaving that language placing a penalty
on the agencies. Ms. LaBolle believed that was a "scare"
tactic. Every time there is a change, the agency threatens
to hold up projects.
JANIE ADAIR, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE, noted that she had
asked the Department of Law to describe the substantial
change language and requested a letter from that Department.
[Copy on File].
Ms. Adair pointed out that the sponsor of the bill had not
spoken with the Department regarding the goals of the
legislation. She agreed that the regulatory process is
frustrating. Every regulation that is adopted has to have
an authority line. The Department of Law is judicious in
looking at all the proposals.
Ms. Adair spoke to the regulation packages. Every comment
received on each proposal is read and responded to. She
stated that she has provided numerous packages in her role
with the Department. She reminded the Committee about the
Solid Waste Disposal package. The Department of Law
requires that DEC have regulations adopted within a year of
the first public notice. Ms. Adair noted concern that there
is no limit on the number of times regulations need to be
public noticed. Public notice is expensive. The Department
understands that the public notice will have to go out at
least two times.
Ms. Adair acknowledged the frustration of the process and
commented that there are other proposals to the
Administrative Procedures Act. She suggested that this is
the direction needed to be taken rather than a proposed
piece-meal project.
Representative Phillips referenced legislation, which
currently passed the House floor and that would streamline
the process. Ms. Adair explained that everything the
Department does gets posted on the web site. The published
notices are in the newspapers and statewide publications.
The best way to make people aware of regulatory proposals is
through direct mailings. Ms. Adair emphasized that there
have been no cost savings in using the Internet services.
Representative Phillips asked how many times had the
Department been faced with legislation where they did not
understand the intent. Ms. Adair replied that the intent is
usually clear.
Mr. Neidig addressed the amendments included in the packet.
He noted that Amendment #1 was an internal reference and
technical correction. [Copy on File]. Amendment #2
addresses concerns of Department of Environmental
Conservation and future case challenges. [Copy on File].
Co-Chair Therriault noted that it was his intent to make
contact with some other industries throughout the State
before further discussion.
SB 24 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|