Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
02/16/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 33-EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 33 "An Act relating to the effect of regulations on small businesses; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR ANDERSON moved to adopt CS for HB 33, Version 24-LS0239\G, Bannister, 2/9/05, as a work draft. Hearing no objection, Version G was before the committee. MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, said that in 1980 the federal government enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which directed regulatory agencies to consider the impact of regulations on small businesses and to study the effect those regulations have on the economy while looking at alternative means to effect the regulatory goal. In 1996 the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act was passed, and that added a judicial review provision to RFA. The Office of Advocacy was created in the Small Business Administration, and it estimated that in 2002 the new statutes saved small businesses $21.1 billion in compliance costs with federal regulations. Based on the success of the federal program, the Office of Advocacy drafted model legislation for states, which is incorporated into HB 33. He added that versions of this bill have passed in 37 states. MR. PAWLOWSKI said HB 33 requires regulatory agencies to consider the impacts of regulations on small businesses, and it gives them the freedom and encouragement to look at alternate methods for meeting the same regulatory goals. He turned to the committee substitute (CS), which limits the scope of the studies that are called for by adding the language "using available information and without conducting new studies that are extensive." The reason for adding that language is that Alaskans are "sadly intimately familiar" with the environmental impact statement process. Agencies were afraid such studies would take a few years, he said, and it is not the intent of the sponsor "to hire scores of economists to conduct studies" on regulations that might cost businesses a few thousand dollars a year. He said HB 33 is about giving agencies the flexibility to use available information and common sense. MR. PAWLOWSKI pointed out a second change in the CS: the exclusion of the regulations promulgated by the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game because the boards make allocation decisions and automatically have an adverse impact on small business. The board process is very open and public, and "can't really be subject to the provisions of HB 33." The third change removes the judicial review process from the bill, because opening this up to the courts is burdensome and "not appropriate to the level of discussion we were having." 4:34:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for a definition of "extensive" regarding the language, "without conducting new studies that are extensive." MR. PAWLOWSKI said that when agencies are promulgating regulations, they have access to a lot of information, but "we don't want them to be conducting economic analysis to any significant detail ...." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that language is like finding a grey ghost in the fog. MR. PAWLOWSKI agreed. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said the intent of the bill is laudable, although she didn't like the phrase "may have an adverse effect on small businesses," since almost any regulation may have an adverse affect on someone. So would all regulations have to have this type of study, she asked. 4:37:46 PM MR. PAWLOWSKI said probably yes. Many who start small businesses don't have resources or experience, and they react to regulations once they have been passed, he stated. "It has a wide-ranging effect, and ... it is amazing to see some of the regulations that have been challenged in court." REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is a fiscal note. MR. PAWLOWSKI said the administration is still working on it. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that it seems that the bill changes the definition of small businesses from 50 employees to 100 employees. He said he is concerned that there will need to be a fiscal statement for each new regulation on how it affects small businesses. MR. PAWLOWSKI said, "You are absolutely correct." It is a broad policy decision at the federal level, he added, and it is a question of how responsive and considerate the regulatory process should be on small businesses. He said the definition of a small business is still being worked on. 4:40:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that regulations are often directed at businesses, and this bill might completely undermine the purpose of the regulation. The restriction on only using current information may preclude agencies from finding out what they need to know. "You're hampering yourself," REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if people in small business have read this. MR. PAWLOWSKI said he is getting letters of support from small businesses and would be happy to provide them. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about occupational licensing, which must be self-supported. "I see absolutely no net benefit to small businesses if their licensures and costs of doing business is going to be increased substantially because of more regulation--this is more regulation, not de-regulation." MR. PAWLOWSKI said that is a very important point because the fiscal impact is outside of the general fund spectrum, and it is being worked on. He added that the administration will testify later on that issue. CHAIR ANDERSON said he thinks people are privy to the meetings going on, and he characterized it as a work in process. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has been in small business for 40 years and this scares him. [HB 33 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|