Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
01/30/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 216 - REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
1:07:39 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to deadlines in
bills directing the adoption of regulations and to the
informative summary required for the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of a regulation." [Before the committee
was CSHB 216(STA).]
1:08:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 216, Version 27-LS0701\E, Bannister,
1/28/12, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion,
and then withdrew his objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no
further objections, announced that Version E was before the
committee.
1:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
after mentioning that Version E incorporates changes suggested
by the Department of Law (DOL), explained that HB 216 would
ensure that regulations are [adopted] in a timely manner, and
that [notifications regarding the proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of regulations] include easily-understood descriptions
of the proposed regulatory changes, thereby addressing the fact
that state agencies often don't get regulation written and
adopted in a timely manner - which leaves those affected by the
proposed regulatory changes unable to move forward with their
plans - and the fact that the legal language used for proposed
regulatory changes is confusing for many. Specifically,
Section 1 of HB 216 - proposed AS 24.08.045(a)-(b) - would
require bills directing an agency to adopt regulations to also
set a specific time by which those regulations must be adopted,
and Section 2 - proposed AS 44.62.200(d) - would require
notifications regarding proposed regulatory changes to include
easily-understood descriptions of those changes. Such
descriptions, she assured the committee, need not be lengthy -
depending on the complexity of the proposed regulatory changes -
and won't be legally binding.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the incorporated changes
suggested by the DOL, indicated that under Version E, Section 1
would only apply to agencies in the executive branch of state
government - not boards or commissions - and Section 2, now
limited to only electronic forms of notification, would only
apply to state agencies, with the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA), the Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game
additionally being exempted because they already have their own
well-defined regulatory notification requirements and deadlines.
Furthermore, Section 2 now contains language that would limit
the liability of state agencies if their notices fail to comply
with the requirements of Section 2. Section 3 - proposing to
modify uncodified law - addresses applicability, stipulating
that the provisions of the bill would only apply to [bills
filed, or regulations adopted, amended, or repealed] on or after
the bill's effective date. Representative P. Wilson, in
conclusion, posited that HB 216's proposed changes to the
regulatory process were warranted, would be helpful, and would
provide clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to questions and comments,
opined that the current practice of using only legal terms to
describe proposed regulatory changes is insufficient to allow
the general public to understand the changes, and explained that
because newspapers charge by the word, Section 2's requirement
that notifications contain a brief description of the proposed
regulatory changes applies only to electronic forms of
notification.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed favor with the goal of the bill,
acknowledging that it can be difficult to understand
descriptions couched in legal terms. Referring to the language
in Section 1 that says, "A bill that directs an agency in the
executive branch of state government to adopt regulations", she
asked whether that direction must be explicit, or whether it
could simply be implied, in order for that provision to apply.
1:19:40 PM
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation &
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), offering to research the issue further after the meeting,
explained that ordinarily when an agency is granted the
authority to adopt regulations on a subject, that authority is
explicitly laid out in statute; so, presumably, if HB 216
passes, in order for Section 1 to apply, a bill would first have
to provide such explicit direction.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, noting that the sponsor of such a bill
might not know how long it's going to take for regulations to be
adopted, questioned whether HB 216 should retain its requirement
- via use of the word "must" in Section 1's proposed AS
24.08.045(a) - that all applicable bills include a time by which
regulations must be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON ventured that any such deadline could
instead just be stipulated in a fiscal note, rather than in the
proposed legislation itself.
[Vice Chair Thompson turned the gavel over to Representative
Keller.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out, though, that as currently
written, HB 216 requires any such deadline to be included in the
proposed legislation itself.
MR. WEAVER concurred.
[Representative Keller returned the gavel to Vice Chair
Thompson.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, suggested
changing Section 1 such that it would no longer stipulate what a
bill that directs an agency to adopt regulations must do, but
would instead stipulate what an agency that has to adopt
regulations in order to implement legislation must do,
indicating a belief that to leave this aspect of Section 1 as is
could engender litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, expressing a preference for retaining
the word, "must", characterized Representative Gruenberg's
suggestion as a good idea. The rules regarding regulations
should be such that the public can figure out what's occurring,
she asserted.
1:31:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES observed that Section 1's proposed
AS 24.08.045(a)(2) requires each applicable bill to also contain
a provision stipulating that an agency shall report to the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee the reasons for being
unable to meet the stated deadline, and questioned whether
HB 216 could be rewritten such that agencies would indeed be
required to report noncompliance, but without requiring the
inclusion of such a provision in each applicable bill.
MR. WEAVER indicated that the DOL would be willing to assist
with crafting alternative language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that perhaps language could
be added to the statutes governing fiscal notes so as to mandate
that accompanying fiscal notes shall contain the required
regulatory information, and then a reference to placement in
fiscal notes could be added to Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, remarking that she didn't feel the
need to require each applicable bill to contain such a
provision, indicated a willingness to research the issue
further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cautioned that any such mandate should
be in statute in order to ensure compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to the language in Section 2's
proposed AS 44.62.200(d) that says, "written in clear, easily
readable language that a person without a legal background is
able to understand without following Internet links to the
Alaska Administrative Code", and suggested that the words,
"without following Internet links to the Alaska Administrative
Code" be replaced with the words, "without cross-referencing the
Alaska Administrative Code or statutes". She then questioned
whether the last sentence in proposed AS 44.62.200(d) was
sufficiently broad enough to preclude all the types of suits
that were of concern; that last sentence currently reads:
"Notwithstanding AS 44.62.200, an action may not be brought for
failure of the notice to comply with the requirements of this
subsection relating to the description of the changes or the
clarity and readability of the notice."
MR. WEAVER, characterizing the inclusion of that sentence in
Version E as an improvement, agreed to research the issue
further.
1:38:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - providing an example from several
years ago wherein the promulgation of necessary regulations
didn't occur simply because two agencies disagreed over which of
them was responsible for the promulgation - recommended that
that provision also be reviewed from the perspective of ensuring
that instances of such complete non-compliance are addressed.
MR. WEAVER agreed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring, then, to Section 1's
proposed AS 24.08.045(a)(2), relayed that he is also questioning
whether the Administrative Regulation Review Committee is the
correct committee for agencies to report to, given that it meets
both irregularly and infrequently. He then suggested that the
bill be amended to require an agency, when reporting the reasons
for not meeting the set deadline, to also propose a new
deadline.
MR. WEAVER, in response to a question, explained that the term,
"state agency" - as used in Section 2 - is defined in
AS 44.62.640(a)(4) as:
(4) "state agency" means a department, office,
agency, or other organizational unit of the executive
branch, except one expressly excluded by law, but does
not include an agency in the judicial or legislative
branches of the state government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether boards governing
occupational licenses should be excluded from the requirements
of HB 216, or whether such boards should be specifically
provided for in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged that perhaps certain
boards and commissions shouldn't be excluded from the
requirements of HB 216, and expressed interest in receiving
input from members with regard to which boards and commissions
the bill should apply to.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES observed that the indeterminate fiscal
note submitted by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) is
estimating that HB 216 would have an extensive fiscal impact,
and surmised that the House Finance Committee would be
scrutinizing that issue further.
1:52:20 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated that the AML supports HB 216, and, to illustrate
why, recounted a past situation in which the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) had proposed extensive regulatory
changes that would have affected local governments, but had
refused to provide the AML with any information about what those
changes entailed. Because one of the AML's duties is to make
local governments aware of issues that could impact them, this
refusal resulted in the AML having to hire outside counsel - at
a cost of over $8,000 - to research the proposed changes. At
the time, she added, a number of legislators, as well as the
governor, had expressed concern about the lack of [meaningful]
information being provided about the proposed regulatory
changes. In conclusion, she reiterated that the AML is very
much in favor of HB 216.
1:55:55 PM
RAYMOND GILLESPIE, Lobbyist, Alaska Municipal League (AML),
remarking on the frustration experienced [by the AML] over the
APOC's continued refusal to provide the requested information,
pointed out that without having an understanding of what
proposed regulatory changes are, no one is going to be able to
provide any meaningful comments on them. Anything that can make
the regulatory process more user-friendly is laudable, he said,
adding that he endorses the bill's requirement that agencies
provide clear, easily readable descriptions of proposed
regulatory changes, and offering his belief that it shouldn't be
too difficult for agencies to do so. For example, perhaps
agencies could just provide something that specifies which text
is new and which is being deleted, similar to how legislation is
drafted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language in Section 2's
proposed AS 44.62.200(d) that says, "must include a brief
description of the changes made", and indicated a preference for
having the phrase, "a brief description" changed to something
more specific, something that would provide guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred with Representative Gruenberg,
but, with regard to Mr. Gillespie's suggestion, pointed out that
a description that merely specifies which text is new and which
is being deleted wouldn't necessarily constitute something that
would be helpful to a person without a legal background.
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to a question, indicated that the
issues addressed by Section 1 of the bill weren't really of
concern to the AML.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, speaking as a former chair of the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee, remarked on that
committee's large workload, and on the importance, from a
legislative standpoint, of keeping up with both state and
federal regulations. He also mentioned that he'd recommended to
the bill's sponsor that HB 216 be expanded.
MS. WASSERMAN, remarking that organizations such as hers must
track all agencies' proposed regulatory changes, opined that
receiving even just a little bit more help understanding such
changes would be wonderful.
MR. GILLESPIE concurred.
MR. WEAVER, in response to questions, explained that the DOL
does provide agencies with drafting assistance; that although it
varies by agency - with some agencies contracting for drafting
services - most agencies attempt an initial draft of proposed
regulatory changes themselves and then sometimes seek additional
drafting assistance from the DOL further on in the process; and
that Version E wouldn't apply to the Alaska Court System (ACS)
[or the Alaska State Legislature] because of Section 1's use of
the phrase, "an agency in the executive branch of state
government", and because of how the term, "state agency", as
used in Section 2, is defined in AS 44.62.640(a)(4).
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that public testimony on HB 216
would remain open, and that HB 216 [Version E] would be held
over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0216A.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 216 |
| 02 Sponsor_HB216_Regulations.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 216 |
| HB0216-1-2-012012-GOV-Y.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |