Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/03/2012 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 216 - REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
1:02:11 PM
CHAIR GATTO 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), and
adopted as the work draft on 1/30/12 was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 216, Version 27-LS0701\E, Bannister,
1/28/12.)
1:03:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to adopt a new proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 216, Version 27-LS0701\T, Bannister,
2/2/12, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version T was then before the committee.
1:03:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature - after
recapping that HB 216 is intended to ensure that proposed
regulatory changes are completed in a timely manner, and that
the associated notices are accompanied by a brief description of
the proposed changes written in clear, easily-readable language
- relayed that Version T addresses the concerns raised during
HB 216's last hearing. Specifically, Section 1 - now proposing
to add new subsections (f) and (g) to AS 24.08.035 - would
require a deadline to be set in a bill's accompanying fiscal
notes, rather than in the bill itself, and reporting to the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee if the initial
deadline is not met, and lists specific entities that are not
exempt from these requirements; Section 2 - still proposing to
add a new subsection (d) to AS 44.62.200 - now stipulates that
the required brief description must accompany the notices,
rather than be included in them, and now uses the term, "cross-
referencing" instead of the phrase, "following Internet links
to"; and the title has been changed to conform with Section 1's
new focus on fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that the specific entities
listed in Section 1's proposed subsection (g) not exempted from
the requirements of proposed subsection (f) are the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), and the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC). She mentioned that she is
still willing to consider adding other such entities to that
list. In conclusion, she offered her belief that HB 216 will
help both the legislature and the public better understand
proposed regulatory changes, particularly in terms of
determining whether they really would implement legislative
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that with the changes incorporated
into Version T, she now agrees with the mandatory nature of
Section 1's proposed subsection (f).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the public, too, should be
informed of any new deadlines and the reasons for the
anticipated delay, and recommended that that issue be given
further consideration.
1:12:46 PM
CHAIR GATTO characterized the language of Section 1's proposed
subsection (g) as confusing because it stipulates that the
requirements of subsection (f) would not apply to regulatory
changes proposed by a state board or commission, but then
specifically lists certain entities that would be excluded from
this exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, and, characterizing HB 216
as a good bill, remarked on the importance of ensuring that it
applies to all the entities that it should.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed support for HB 216, but
questioned whether the term, "the Alaska Administrative Code" -
currently listed in Section 2 as something that a person without
a legal background shouldn't have to cross-reference - could be
replaced with a more general term, particularly given that the
goal is to provide for a description that a person can
understand without doing a lot of research, not necessarily to
ensure that a person won't have to do any research.
CHAIR GATTO concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the language in
Section 2's proposed subsection (d) that would limit the
liability of a state agency if it failed to comply with
subsection (d)'s description requirements, questioned whether
that language should be amended to allow for certain kinds of
actions to be brought, such as those that could result in an
agency being required by the court to comply with
subsection (d)'s requirements. He then suggested that perhaps
the Alaska Redistricting Board and the University of Alaska
Board of Regents should be added to Section 1's list of entities
that would not be excluded from Section 1's proposed
deadline/reporting requirements.
1:22:27 PM
DEBORAH BEHR, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil
Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), referring to
Section 1's proposed subsection (f) and the issue of people
wanting regulations to be promulgated more quickly, remarked
that generally the way to ensure that that occurs is to provide
adequate funding and other resources to those agencies that have
to promulgate regulations. Furthermore, because agencies
generally prepare their own fiscal notes, she said she is
questioning whether Section 1 now comports with the
legislature's intention regarding which branch of government is
to be setting deadlines, and if the preference is to have the
legislature set them, then the committee should also consider
how practical it's going to be for the legislature to fulfill
such a duty during a 90-day session, though currently nothing
precludes the legislature from setting such deadlines in
proposed legislation. Other points to consider are that with
some bills, several agencies are impacted, and proposed
subsection (f) seems to imply that for any given bill, one
deadline shall be set for all relevant agencies; and whether
agencies, instead of setting and reporting a new deadline, will
simply resort to pushing regulations through the process just to
meet an initial deadline.
MS. BEHR, referring to Section 1's proposed subsection (g),
relayed that she would be willing to assist in drafting clearer
language, but noted that for the most part - perhaps with one
exception, that being the APOC - the specific entities listed
therein as being excluded from the proposed exemption for state
boards and commissions don't engender complaints regarding the
timeliness of promulgated regulations. Furthermore, most state
boards and commissions don't have the authority to promulgate
regulations, and whenever specific lists are provided for in
legislation/statute, there are the dangers of missing certain
items that should be included and of those lists not being kept
up to date. She then characterized the language in Section 2's
proposed subsection (d) as improved - expressing favor with the
prohibition on bringing an action based on the failure of the
brief description to comply with the requirements set forth
in (d) - but suggested that the sentence which currently says,
"The brief description shall be written in clear, easily
readable language that a person without a legal background is
able to understand without cross-referencing the Alaska
Administrative Code." should be amended by putting the period
after the word, "understand" and deleting the words, "without
cross-referencing the Alaska Administrative Code".
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to comments, clarified
that it is her intention for agencies to set the required
deadlines, concurring that it's the agencies themselves that
would be in a better position to know how long it's going to
take to promulgate the necessary regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed his satisfaction, then, with
the bill's current prohibition on bringing actions, and with its
[new focus on] fiscal notes.
MS. BEHR offered her understanding that the Office of
Management & Budget (OMB) has a problem with HB 216's proposal
to use fiscal notes for setting policy.
1:35:53 PM
ARNOLD LIEBELT, Policy Analyst, Office of the Director, Office
of Management & Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, explained
that fiscal notes have always and only been considered
instruments for transmitting to the legislative branch of
government the estimated cost-impact of proposed legislation -
nothing else. Version T of HB 216 is proposing to change this
by requiring fiscal notes to include information unrelated to
the cost-impact, and this could open the door to policy-setting
via fiscal notes. Currently, although not labeled separately as
such, an agency's fiscal note pertaining to legislation
requiring the promulgation of regulations already includes an
estimate of the costs associated with that promulgation -
including costs related to the estimated length of time and
numbers of staff required for the promulgation. Furthermore, he
pointed out, because fiscal notes aren't binding, any deadline
set in one wouldn't be binding either. In response to
questions, he clarified that the concern centers on whether
fiscal notes - since they are meant to reflect monetary
estimates - are the appropriate vehicle for setting deadlines,
not on whether agencies are capable of estimating how long
promulgating regulations might take; again, agencies already
make such estimates now, and so could provide that information
during committee hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, though, that only those
who attend such hearings would know whether a time-estimate had
been provided, and offered his belief, therefore, that fiscal
notes would indeed be the appropriate vehicle for setting a
deadline, and could simply be revised as agencies get a better
idea of how long the promulgation of regulations might take.
MS. BEHR, in response to questions and comments, explained that
the notices pertaining to proposed regulatory changes are
generally produced by the agencies themselves with limited legal
assistance due to DOL staffing limitations; acknowledged that
such notices could perhaps be clearer, surmising that Section 2
of the bill is going to be helpful in that regard; and pointed
out that the prohibition in Section 2 only addresses actions
based on the failure of the brief description to comply with the
requirements set forth in proposed AS 44.62.200(d), with
existing law already protecting the public [against agency
noncompliance with statutory direction to promulgate
regulations].
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER concurred with Ms. Behr's point about the
proposed prohibition, and again expressed favor with HB 216, but
commented on its seeming edentulous nature.
1:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
deleting from page 2, line 16, the words, "without cross-
referencing the Alaska Administrative Code". There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether HB 216 should
provide for a specific effective date.
MS. BEHR offered to research that issue.
CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 216 [Version T as amended] would be
held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB216-E.pdf |
HJUD 2/3/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB216 Draft CS 2-3-12.pdf |
HJUD 2/3/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| Sponsor_HB216_Regulations.pdf |
HJUD 2/3/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB 216 Support document AML.pdf |
HJUD 2/3/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |