Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/16/1995 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Joe Green
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Scott Ogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public
comment on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of
regulations; relating to the examination of
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations by the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee and the
Department of Law; relating to the submission to,
and acceptance by, the lieutenant governor of
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations; and requiring
agencies to make certain determinations before
adopting regulations, amendments of regulations,
or orders repealing regulations."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 163: "An Act requiring an agency to provide compliance
cost estimates for proposed regulations,
amendments, and repeals of regulations under
certain circumstances."
HEARD AND HELD
HSTA - 03/16/95
*HB 201: "An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603,
and 604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure
11, 33, 35, and 35.1; and providing for an
effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HSTA - 03/16/95
*HB 234: "An Act relating to administrative adjudication
under the Administrative Procedure Act."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HSTA - 03/16/95
*HB 212: "An Act relating to the management and sale of state
timber and relating to the administration of forest land
and classification of state land."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HSTA - 03/16/95
*HB 122: "An Act authorizing payment of a portion of the motor
fuel tax on boats and watercraft as refunds to
municipalities; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 130
MICHELLE O'LEARY, Vice President
Regional Citizens Advisory Council
P.O. Box 1052
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: 424-7758
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 130 and HB 163
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110015
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015
Telephone: 465-5400
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed Lt. Governor Ulmer's concerns with
HB 130
PAM NEAL, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 2nd Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 130 and HB 163
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Telephone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 130
BONNIE WILLIAMS, Consultant
Bonnie Williams Consultant
P. O. Box 82812
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: 455-6652
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 130
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 11030
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300
Telephone: 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 130
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 163
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Governor
240 Main Street, Suite 800
Court Plaza Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0020
Telephone: 465-4676
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 130 and 163
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 157 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/22/95 (H) ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/22/95 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(ARR)
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES REQUIRED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Toohey,Kelly,MacLean
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 272 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) STA, FIN
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, MACLEAN
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 201
SHORT TITLE: PRISONER LITIGATION AND APPEALS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 488 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/95 488 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, CORR, DPS)
02/27/95 488 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
02/27/95 488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/06/95 591 (H) 14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, DEC, F&G)
03/06/95 591 (H) (DHSS, LABOR, LAW, DPS, DOT)
03/06/95 591 (H) (4-DCED, 2-DOE)
03/06/95 591 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/08/95 665 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE: TIMBER MANAGEMENT
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 530 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 530 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 122
SHORT TITLE: MARINE MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES,Grussendorf,Mackie
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 132 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 132 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-27, SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:10 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives James, Porter,
Green, and Robinson. Representative Ivan arrived at 8:49 a.m.
Members absent were Representatives Ogan and Willis.
HSTA - 03/16/95
HB 130 - REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced the first item on the agenda was HB
130. She called for Bruce Campbell, Administrative Assistant to
Representative Pete Kelly, sponsor of the measure, to come and
testify on behalf of Representative Kelly.
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kelly, said he was in attendance to ask the committee to adopt
proposed draft for HB 130 and to pass the bill out of committee.
He said that HB 130 was a small step towards regulation reform,
working within the current framework of the regulatory process.
Mr. Campbell stated that the bill does two things: 1) Provides for
the review of regulations by an elected official; and 2) Gives
guidance to those in the administration who must work with the
public comment process. He further added that HB 130 attempts to
bring public opinion into the regulatory process. Mr. Campbell
said he would be glad to answer any questions from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked what changes were made in the
proposed committee substitute for HB 130, from the original bill.
Number 062
MR. CAMPBELL said the changes were small modifications arising from
questions coming from the Lieutenant Governor's Office and from
comments regarding the fiscal notes. He stated the most
substantive change was in Section 6, AS 44.62.215, which would be
a new section added. Part (b), lines 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been
shortened from four items to two. These state that before an
agency adopts a regulation, they shall make a written estimate of
the cost of compliance to private individuals affected by the
proposed regulation and show that there is an economically feasible
means of complying with the proposed regulatory action.
Originally, this section had two additional requirements for
showing the economic benefits to and economic impact on the state,
which was interpreted by some agencies as meaning they would have
to hire additional economists to collect this data. This was not
the intent of the bill. These two items are still part of the
written record provided to the Lt. Governor, and will help give
some sense of the requirements of the regulation to those who must
comply. He stated that Section 2, page 3, lines 10, 11, 14, and
15, were changed to note the Lt. Governor may return a proposed
regulation to the agencies if and when he/she finds that doing so
is in the best interests of the state. He said this helps to
define the reasons the Lt. Governor may return a regulation to an
agency for redrafting. He stated these were the two major changes
in the proposed committee substitute for HB 130, and argued the
bill still hopes to add light and review to the regulatory process
through the Lt. Governor's Office and the legislature's
Administrative Regulation Review Committee prior to regulations
being signed into law. He further stated HB 130 gives guidelines
as to how public comment must be considered by the agencies during
the drafting of proposed regulations.
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN mentioned that HB 130 had picked up an
additional fiscal note, which would cost the state an extra
$300,000 a year. He asked Mr. Campbell whether he thought the
stated objective of this bill was worth the extra expense. He
asked what the state would be getting for the extra cost.
BRUCE CAMPBELL said it was not their intent to have such a large
fiscal note, and that they thought the proposed committee
substitute for HB 130 would lower the cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER attempted to summarize his understanding of
what HB 130 hoped to accomplish in the regulatory process. He said
that, as he understood it, the agencies would be required to come
up with a cost of compliance estimate for new proposed regulations.
These draft regulations would then go to the legislatures
Administrative Regulation Review Committee before going to the Lt.
Governor's Office for signing into law, where they would receive
additional review.
Number 193
MR. CAMPBELL responded this bill would require the agencies to
prepare a cost of compliance estimate for new regulations, which
would be filed by the Lt. Governor as a part of the official
record. He further stated that HB 130 would assign the Lt.
Governor to send draft regulations to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee prior to their being filed into law, where they
would receive additional review if necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER verified that the Lt. Governor was required,
by this bill, to delay the filing of new regulations, until
receiving input from the legislature's Administrative Regulation
Review Committee.
MR. CAMPBELL agreed this was the case for a period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what would keep this proposal from
delaying the regulatory process to the point it was not manageable.
MR. CAMPBELL said it would require some legwork and cooperation
between the Administration and the legislature's Administrative
Regulation Review Committee. In the case of an emergency
regulation, this bill would not apply. He suggested that we
currently have a similar situation in the review of regulations by
the Department of Law, which has no set time frame. He said they
were trying to give the Administrative Regulation Review Committee
a set time period in which to do their review, but if this period
were considered too long, it could be negotiated. He stated this
period was currently set at 90 days in the proposed committee
substitute for HB 130.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he thought the cost of compliance
review would add time to the regulatory process.
MR. CAMPBELL said no, as he thought the cost of compliance
questions would come up largely in the public hearing comments.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was a default mechanism in the
review process of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee,
if they did not respond within the designated amount of time.
MR. CAMPBELL said this was the case.
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked for an explanation of how the
sponsor had addressed the concerns of the Department of Law
regarding this bill. As an example, she said one of their concerns
was about the fast pace in which regulations needed to be written,
and they were concerned this bill would delay that process.
MR. CAMPBELL responded that the current process was not
instantaneous and takes a certain amount of time. He stated HB 130
would extend this process by a period of time for review of the
regulation by the committee, but that this phase could probably be
quickened upon request from the public. Mr. Campbell said they
would have to anticipate the amount of time needed for this, just
as they need to anticipate the delays in the current process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON verified that the bill clearly identified
it was the legislature's regulation review committee, who would be
conducting this review.
MR. CAMPBELL stated it was, and that this committee was called the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was confused if it was the legislature's
committee, why was the word "administrative" included in the title.
She said this made it unclear as to whose committee it was.
Number 295
CHAIR JAMES responded that this was the language of the existing
statutes and not the language of this particular bill. She said
the reason for this title was that the committee was reviewing
administrative regulations. She said this committee is a joint
committee of the House and Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she was familiar with the committee
and knew there were considerations of disbanding it, as it had no
function. She said she supposed this bill was trying to give it a
function.
CHAIR JAMES responded the original purpose of the committee,
related to a statute which allowed the legislature to annul a
regulation by a resolution. This was then deemed unconstitutional
by the courts and so the committee has been left without a
function.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why this bill would not then be
considered unconstitutional.
Number 334
MR. CAMPBELL replied that this bill does not deal with the
annulment of regulations at all. That was a much larger issue
covered by HB 105 and HJR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON continued by stating that another concern
of the Department of Law, was that this bill gave authority to the
Lt. Governor to return regulations to the agencies, who may not
know what the problem is. She wanted to know how the sponsor
proposed to deal with this problem and how the agencies would know
why the regulation was returned.
MR. CAMPBELL said that he could not believe that this would be the
case, as the agencies would be directly involved with the public
hearing process and would be exposed to the concerns and
complaints. He stated the problems which arose in the past, were
when a Lieutenant Governor acted on their own discretion without
the delegated authority, such as former Lt. Governor Steve
McAlpine. He said Mr. McAlpine did refuse to sign regulations
which he thought had problems. He added that in the past
Administration, the ability of the Lt. Governor to stop and review
regulations was granted by the Governor, which was later taken
away. Therefore, he thought that when the legislature grants this
authority, this conflict would be removed and it would become a
part of the normal regulatory process to get the regulations signed
into law.
Number 375
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she thought it was strange to allow
the Lt. Governor to send the regulation back without an
explanation. She thought that maybe this explanation should be in
writing and recommended changes.
MR. CAMPBELL argued that the phrasing "best interest finding" has
a certain legal definition, which requires a certain type of
decision making by the Lt. Governor before he/she returns a
regulation to the agency. He thought that although this may not be
as strong of language as the Department of Law would like, there is
a particular reason established by this bill, as to why a
regulation may or may not be returned.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why this bill was trying to preclude
the agencies from considering public policy concerns arising from
public comment, which was the opinion of the Department of Law.
She thought that one of the main concerns of the regulatory process
was the perceived lack of listening to public concerns by the
agencies.
MR. CAMPBELL disagreed with the Department of Law's interpretation
of HB 130 on this point. He said they were not trying to preclude
the agencies from taking public comment, but that in the
preparation of the draft regulation from public comment, they are
asking the agency to create a written record of what comments they
evaluate and how the regulation has changed accordingly, but are
restricting them to evaluate only factual or substantive comments
in the drafting of the regulation and not the preferences of
individuals on the issue. He argued that the agencies task in
writing regulations were to make specific and add details to the
laws passed by the legislature and not to be a legislative body of
its own. He said they were not delegated the authority by the
legislature to pass judgement on a particular statute, but only the
ability to add detail to implement a given statute. The weighing
of public will in developing policy was properly the purview of the
legislature and not the agencies. Thus, HB 130 was an attempt in
assisting the agencies in how to deal with public testimony during
the regulatory process.
Number 455
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was concerned about what would happen
if the regulations were given to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee for review during a time when the legislature was
not in session, and may not be able to respond in the allowed 30
day time period.
MR. CAMPBELL stated he thought that for the bulk of regulations
that were well written, this would not matter. He said this
question hinged mainly on whether this committee was to be an
interim committee. He suspected that if a particular regulation
developed enough public concern, the committee would avail itself
of the opportunity to offer its suggestions regarding the
regulation.
CHAIR JAMES invited Representative Kelly to come sit at the
committee table. She added that there was a person wishing to
testify via teleconference from Cordova.
Number 490
MICHELLE O'LEARY, Vice President of the Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens Advisory Committee, said she wanted to commend
the legislature's effort to insure that regulations are clearly
written and to provide a user friendly mechanism for consistently
implementing state law through the regulatory process. She agreed
that laws should be written to minimize the burden of regulations,
while maximizing the public welfare. She added that both HB 130
and HB 163 contain provisions, which require the private costs
imposed by regulations to be analyzed and agencies stipulate in
writing that there is an economically feasible means of complying
with the regulation. She said she questioned whether agencies
would be able to make this determination. She thought that one of
the results of recent environmental regulations, was the large and
thriving environmental compliance industry. Ms. O'Leary said the
technological growth of this industry was astounding, and the
result of and not the cause of environmental laws and regulations.
She stated that when a new law is written, there is often a
significant time lag before regulations are written and compliance
is required. During this time, the highly competitive
environmental compliance industry researches ways to bring the
regulated industry into compliance. She said it was not uncommon
to have the compliance dated postponed to meet the requirements of
stringent environmental laws. Ms. O'Leary thought that in most
cases the agencies would have no means of knowing what compliance
technologies would be developed or what technologies would be
selected by the regulated industry. She was also disturbed that
both HB 130 and HB 163 require a cost of compliance by private
parties only, and not a cost-benefit analysis for the general
public. Ms. O'Leary thought it was generally agreed that it was
the role of government to restrict private actions only if the cost
of these private actions are excessive or pose a risk to the
general public. She thought that if laws were passed only if their
was a public risk, then it made little sense to measure only the
private cost of compliance. Ms. O'Leary further argued that a
subjective analysis of these costs should be calculated before a
law is passed and should not totally be the burden of the
regulatory process. Speaking specifically about HB 163, she wanted
to note that agencies were required, when providing public notice
to provide the reason for the proposed regulation, the initial cost
to the state agency for implementation, the annual cost to the
state agency for implementation, and the cost of compliance to
private parties. She believed that the annual cost to the agency
for implementation should be included in the fiscal notes passed
with the enabling legislation. She added that HB 163, requires the
agencies to calculate the initial cost of compliance to private
individuals, if the proposed regulation will increase compliance
costs. Ms. O'Leary again argued that it was wrong to calculate
only the costs of compliance and not the cost-benefit ratio for the
general public. Speaking about HB 130, she was concerned that this
bill set up the Lt. Governor's Office as a vehicle for the return
of regulations by the legislature. She thought that maybe this
would be making the legislature a judiciary body, and whether it
should have this right. She was also concerned that nothing in HB
130, required the Lt. Governor to take public testimony after a
draft regulation was returned with suggestions from the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee. She was concerned this
would set up a system whereby the public could testify on a
proposed regulation, only to have it modified with no apparent
recourse for the public. Again, with HB 130 as with HB 163, she
was concerned that the bill required only a private cost of
compliance estimate and not a cost-benefit ratio for the general
public. Finally, Ms. O'Leary was concerned with the provision of
HB 130, which would require that an agency consider only testimony
that was substantive and factual, and not an expression of personal
preference. She was concerned this would limit the ability of the
public to participate in the legislative and regulatory process.
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone in the audience wished to testify on HB
130.
Number 600
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff for Lt. Governor Fran Ulmer, stated
that Lt. Governor Ulmer felt pretty ambivalent towards HB 130 and
would like all of the regulation reform bills to be a topic of
discussion over the interim, as is the case with HB 105. Lt.
Governor Ulmer feels that this will help to create a coordinated
approach towards regulation reform, and will build a consensus
between the Administration and the legislature. In a letter to the
bill sponsor, Lt. Governor Ulmer expressed her concerns over the
lack of specificity in HB 130, as to why the Lt. Governor should
return a regulation to the agencies. She would like to see more
specific reasons listed in the bill, and would be more than willing
to work with the legislature to develop this language. He said the
Lt. Governor is also concerned with the legal issues brought up by
the Department of Law, regarding HB 130, and would like to see them
thoroughly researched by the various committees hearing this bill.
Number 628
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone else would like to testify on this
bill.
PAM NEAL, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, stated that
the Chamber of Commerce was generally supportive of HB 130. She
said they are particularly supportive of the requirement that the
agencies speak to public comment and how it was dealt with. She
added that one of their concerns, over the current regulatory
process, was that the business community was not always aware of
whether they were heard by the agencies, and if not, why not. They
also agreed that elected officials should be the ones responsible
for regulations. Finally, the chamber believes very strongly that
regulations should reflect the intent of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what the chamber's view would be
towards putting all of the proposed regulatory bills into a
subcommittee for review and public hearings over the interim.
MS. NEAL said that the chamber was concerned that if they were to
put all of the bills into a subcommittee to address the overall
concern, that the problem was so large, there would be no steps
towards reform. Thus, they would rather take the approach of
taking small steps and whittling away at the problem, while the
overall solution was addressed and developed. They did not see
where HB 130 would negate any of the other proposals towards
regulatory reform, and so were satisfied with pushing it forward
while the overall solution were developed.
Number 694
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the chamber had looked at the
concerns of the Attorney General's Office or those of the Lt.
Governor's Office, and whether they thought it was wise to push an
incomplete bill through the legislative process, which may end up
getting vetoed in the end.
PAM NEAL replied that they had not gotten to look at the Attorney
General's letter, but added that they were strongly in favor of HJR
1, which would call for a constitutional amendment to annul
regulations. Their main focus was to develop a regulatory process,
which was user friendly and developed regulations which met
legislative intent and only those that were necessary.
TAPE 95-27, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Pete Kelly, the bill
sponsor, about the concerns that HB 130 would limit public
testimony in the regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY responded that there were two processes
occurring. The agencies would weigh the factual and scientific
merits of the enabling legislation in developing new regulations,
leaving the weighing of public will to the legislature, through the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee. He felt that it was in
this committee, that it would be the proper place to review both
public will and the scientific merits of the regulation. He felt
that this was the proper way to weigh public testimony, as the
employees of the agencies are not elected officials.
Number 018
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that she was still confused about
the section that would preclude the agencies from weighing public
comment that was not factual.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY argued that she was in charge, as a
legislator, of public policy. He said an employee of an agency is
not. Their job is to take the public policy of the legislature,
with the approval of the governor, and to draft a regulation for
implementing this policy based on the facts. Furthermore, he added
there was nothing in statute currently that directed the agencies
as to how to deal with public testimony and comments. This bill,
would give guidelines to the agencies as to how to take public
testimony, and to leave a paper trail of how they responded to this
testimony. It provided guidelines as to what was the purview of
the legislature and that of the agencies.
Number 070
CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to clarify why two of the regulatory
reform bills were out of the subcommittee and back before the House
State Affairs Committee. She said the decision of the subcommittee
was to take one of the three bills, HB 105, and hold it over the
interim to try and work out a comprehensive reform of the
regulatory process with the public and the Administration. They
decided to take HB 130 and HB 163 and forward them through the
legislative process on their own merits. Chair James said of that
day, she would be filing a fourth regulatory reform bill, which
would establish the sunset provisions and legislative oversight of
regulations as discussed in committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wanted to clarify that part of the review of
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee would include making
sure that the proposed regulation met the intent of the legislature
with the enabling statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded this was absolutely true.
CHAIR JAMES wanted to recognize the arrival of Representative Ivan
to the committee and added that Bonnie Williams was on
teleconference to testify.
Number 125
BONNIE WILLIAMS, political consultant and former Chair of Governor
Hickel's Task Force on Regulatory Reform, stated she was not sure
how this bill would reform the regulatory process. She thought the
bill would extend the current process by adding another layer. She
further was concerned that the cost analysis and statement of
economic feasibility occurred after the public comment, which made
them simply assertions of the agency and not valid estimates. This
she felt limited public comment or correction of the calculations.
She further pointed out there was no cost-benefit analysis
required. She also commented that she saw nothing in HB 130, which
met any of the recommendations of the regulation reform task force.
She said she was particularly concerned that if this bill passed,
the legislature would believe they had accomplished regulation
reform, and nothing further will occur. She again stated she could
not accept HB 130 as regulatory reform.
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he wanted to clarify the cost analysis
was a part of the regulatory process, and the intent was to have
them completed before the draft regulation goes to the Lt.
Governor, so that they and the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee can be better informed regarding the costs of the
regulation. He did not feel that the cost of compliance analysis
was done necessarily after the public comment period, but he would
check this point out and try and address it in the bill.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any other comments or anyone else
wishing to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that Deborah Behr was present from
the Attorney General's Office and that she would like the
opportunity to ask Ms. Behr some questions.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease.
Number 183
CHAIR JAMES called the meeting back to order.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented that she too wanted appropriate
regulation reform, and when she looked at the surface of the bill
it sounded good. Her concerns were raised when exploring the legal
issues raised by the Attorney General's Office, as well as the
level of public comment allowed by this bill. Thus, she would like
to address some of these concerns with Deborah Behr of the Attorney
General's Office.
Number 200
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, and
the Executive Branch, said she was pleased to be able to offer
comments before the committee on HB 130. She said she was
concerned about the constitutional issue of separation of powers.
She stated that in the original version of HB 130, it read that the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee had 30 days in which to
review a draft regulation and could apply to the Lt. Governor for
additional time if needed. She was concerned that this could be
interpreted legally as a "pocket veto" of the regulatory process.
In the proposed committee substitute, she noted there was an
attempt to address this concern on page 3, lines 7, 8, and 9, by
saying after the 30 days were over, if the committee needed more
than 90 days to provide its comment on a proposed regulation, it
must provide the Lt. Governor with a date of when this comment
would be ready. She said this was an improvement, but she was not
sure this would withstand a constitutional challenge under ALIVE
Voluntary. She was also concerned about the bill's delegation of
legislative powers to a subcommittee of the legislature in the form
of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee. Ms. Behr said
a few members of the committee cannot possibly represent the views
of all 60 members of the legislature. She said this again would
not withstand constitutional challenge in the courts, because it
was an impermissible delegation of legislative power to a committee
of the legislature.
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked to verify what she meant by setting out
parameters for what.
MS. BEHR said she meant that an agency can go no farther in
drafting a regulation than the parameters set out by the
legislature in a statute. She offered an example of a law
regarding the maximum speed limit allowed in the state. If the
legislature wanted the maximum speed limit to be 65 miles per hour,
they would put this in a statute and the agencies would be limited
by it. However, the statute said the Executive Branch may set a
maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, they could exceed this
limit if they chose to do so. Thus, tighter statutes limit the
ability of the Executive Branch to go beyond the wishes of the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON pointed out that under HB 130, even the
sponsor of the bill may not have the opportunity to express their
intent, which may be different than that of the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee.
MS. BEHR agreed, saying that even the sponsor's intent may change
as the bill goes through the legislative process, and so the courts
say they look at the record as a whole to interpret legislative
intent. She said that she would like to echo that this bill should
be a project of the interim and she would be willing to work with
anyone over the summer on the regulation reform issue. She said
she was also concerned about the ability this bill gives to the Lt.
Governor to return a regulation that the Governor and their staff
may want, as the Governor is constitutionally the chief executive
of the state. She thought that this could arguably be considered
unconstitutional. She thought that maybe a way around this was to
give this authority to the governor who could then delegate it to
the Lt. Governor and revoke it if a problem arose. She added she
was also concerned about the bill's changing the position of boards
and commissions, as she thought most people valued the time and
input of these citizen groups. Currently, the regulations
promulgated by many of these groups are final, and cannot be sent
back by the Governor or the Lt. Governor. Thus, any limiting of
the abilities of the citizen groups to promulgate regulations ought
to be something that the legislature did intentionally and not as
an accidental oversight, as she suspected was happening with HB
130. Finally, she wanted to express her concern about limiting the
ability of the agencies to consider public policy while drafting
new regulations. Also, Ms. Behr indicated was concerned about
additional steps in the regulatory process that may open the state
up for litigation. As an example, she suggested that a problem
with HB 130 was the cost of compliance requirement, which did not
define cost. The question she had was how far down the line the
agency should go in determining costs. Do you look to the cost to
the private business or do you go to the cost to the consumer who
buys that product? She said she would be willing to answer any
questions.
Number 367
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN shared his concern over whether there was a
default mechanism that would limit how long the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee may review a proposed regulation. He
stated that he had thought from the testimony of the bill sponsor's
aid, that this time was limited, but that Ms. Behr had concluded
that this time could be extended indefinitely. Thus, he had some
reservations about that part of this bill.
MS. BEHR commented she wanted to make sure there was no confusion,
that the proposed committee substitute for HB 130 did set a firm
date of when this review would be completed, but that it could go
on for an extended period of time such as two to three years.
Thus, she thought this section was still problematic and would not
withstand a court test.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were anyone else who wished to testify
on this bill. Hearing none, she asked what the committees
intention was regarding the passage of this bill to the next
committee of referral.
Number 387
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 130, version M, as the working document for
consideration by the committee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the
committee substitute was adopted for consideration. She added
although she would like for only good, cleaned up bills to leave
this committee, that some of the legal problems of HB 130 might
better be considered in the Judiciary Committee, which was the next
committee of referral. She stated she did not want to impose any
of her views on the committee, and so would like the committee as
a whole to make that decision.
Number 407
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN apologized for missing the testimony of
Deborah Behr from the Attorney General's Office, as he had some
questions for her. He said he could give her a call later.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that this bill had two more committees of
referral, and so maybe some of their questions could be answered in
those committees. She stated she felt a little uneasy in sending
a problematic bill forward to the next committee, but had done so
in the past and so had unfortunately set the precedent already.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to say she felt very strongly that
we should keep all bills dealing with regulation reform in this
committee as an interim project to try and come up with an overall
solution towards regulation reform. She felt that Chair James had
made the right decision in holding her own regulation reform bill,
HB 105, as an interim project and urged the committee to do so with
this bill as well.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN commented that he was perfectly willing to have
his question answered at the next committee of referral.
Number 442
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he did not have any problem with
addressing the legal issues raised by HB 130 in the judiciary
committee, but that he felt there were some issues, such as further
refinement of the definition "best interest of the state" and the
issue of defining cost of compliance, that he thought would be
better answered in this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed, further arguing that an additional
concern of this committee was the proper role of the Lt. Governor.
CHAIR JAMES asked what the committee would like to do regarding
passage of this bill to the next committee.
Number 471
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to pass this CSHB 130(STA), with attached
fiscal notes, to the next committee of referral.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Representative
Robinson objected, and so Chair James asked for a roll call vote.
During the vote, Representative Green had some further questions he
would like to have answered before voting. The vote was
interrupted to answer these questions. His concern was whether the
Judiciary Committee would consider all of the concerns raised in
this committee or just those of a legal nature.
CHAIR JAMES asked for Representative Porter to answer this question
as the chair of the Judiciary Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that knowing the scheduling of the
Finance Committee, he would hope that all of the concerns raised
here would be settled either in Judiciary or this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that he would gladly offer a committee
substitute for responding to most of the concerns raised, as he
thought they were legitimate concerns that needed to be dealt with.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN offered to withdraw his motion to pass this
bill out of committee, if there were concerns over issues that
should be dealt with in this committee. He said he did not mean to
put forward a divisive motion to the committee.
Number 538
CHAIR JAMES tried to summarize the concerns raised in this
committee, as a combination of judicial and policy issues. She
wanted to verify that it was not just the judicial issues that were
of concern to the committee, but policy issues as well.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN also asked for this verification of the
concerns.
CHAIR JAMES called for verification of these concerns of the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN thought that he was hearing that the concerns
were over policy issues as well as judicial concerns, and stated he
would like policy concerns settled in the State Affairs Committee.
Thus, he wanted to withdraw his motion to pass the bill on to the
next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought that keeping the bill in this the
State Affairs Committee would not amount to a substantial delay in
moving this bill through the legislative process, as those concerns
would have to be dealt with in any committee. He felt that policy
issues would be better dealt with in this committee, as it seemed
to be the focal point of the regulation reform issue. He thought
that many of the concerns could be fixed rather easily.
CHAIR JAMES asked bill sponsor, Representative Kelly, how much time
he felt it would take him to try and fix some of the concerns of
the committee, so that it could be rescheduled for consideration.
She wondered whether it could be scheduled for the next committee
meeting on Saturday.
REPRESENTATIVES PORTER and KELLY stated that they would both be
tied up in the Finance Committee on Saturday.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought that maybe it could be held until
the Tuesday meeting, and that the bill sponsor could try and
address as many of the concerns as possible before that meeting.
She thought that getting the bill as refined as possible before
passage from the State Affairs Committee, would help it to move
through future committees faster as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wanted to clarify that he was not concerned
about dealing with the legal issues in the Judiciary Committee, but
thought that the policy issues were best handled in this committee.
Number 593
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he wished to withdraw his former motion
to pass this bill to the next committee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objections. Hearing none, the
motion was withdrawn. She asked Representative Kelly how soon he
thought he could come back to the committee with corrections to his
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed his concern that the Department of
Law had waited until now to share their concerns with HB 130, as
they have had copies of the bill and have been corresponding with
his office for a couple of months. He thought that maybe it was
not in their best interest to support a bill, which might limit
their power in the regulatory process. He stated he would gladly
draft amendments to try and address the concerns of the Department
of Law, but wondered how long it would take them to respond. He
argued the legislature could be forced to study regulation reform
indefinitely, if it continued to try and get approval from the
administration and the agencies. He thought that maybe these
concerns should be pushed through the committee process and force
the administration and the agencies to respond on the legislatures
time frame. Thus, he urged the committee to make a decision on the
bill, whether it meant voting in favor or opposition. Otherwise,
he feared the Administration could drag its feet indefinitely. He
stated he could offer a committee substitute very quickly, but did
not know whether it would be to the administrations liking.
Number 629
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON disagreed, saying she had not had bad luck
in dealing with the Department of Law. She did not feel that there
was such strong opposition from the Department of Law in dealing
with these concerns. She said that did not mean they would agree
with the committee's decision, but that they would work with the
bill sponsor and the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he would try and address the concerns by
Saturday's meeting.
CHAIR JAMES thought this was a good idea to hold the bill until
Saturday, so that these concerns could be addressed. She felt that
should the vote be called now, the bill would probably die, if
these concerns were not addressed. Thus, she was glad to hold the
bill over until the Saturday meeting. She asked if there was any
objections from the committee. Hearing none, the bill was held
over.
HSTA - 03/16/95
HB 163 - COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES REQUIRED
CHAIR JAMES announced the next bill on the agenda was HB 163.
Number 650
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
expressed that apologies of Representative Kott for being unable to
attend the meeting himself. He said that HB 163 takes the
recommendations of the Alaska Mineral Commission, the National
Federation of Independent Business, and excerpts from the
Department of Law's drafting manual of 1993, and puts into statute
the requirement that an agency prepare a cost of compliance
estimate, when publishing notice to adopt or repeal a regulation.
He added that the fiscal notes for the bill range from zero to
$178,000, which seemed to be differing understandings from the
agencies of what the bill required. He pointed out that the
Department of Health and Social Services, who adopts an enormous
amount of regulations and works closely with their constituencies,
gave a fiscal note of zero, while the Department of Environmental
Conservation estimated a fiscal impact of $178,700 with the hiring
of three more full time employees. He stated the Department of
Revenue cited reasons that precluded them from calculating a cost
of compliance estimate, and felt that the legislature should pay
this cost anyhow. He offered to answer any questions.
Number 673
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he had seen the letter from
Michelle O'Leary and whether he had any comments on it.
MR. MOURANT informed her that he had seen the letter just recently
and had heard her testimony on teleconference. He argued that most
of her concerns about HB 163 were already present in existing law.
He stated the only thing that this bill will do, is take the
suggestion of the 1993 Department of Law drafting manual for
regulations and put it into statute as a requirement. He commented
that with regard to her second concern, regarding the additional
cost to the agency for doing this calculation, is essentially a
mute point. This is because the agencies should have no additional
cost for complying with this bill, if they are following the
suggestion in the drafting manual from the Department of Law.
TAPE 95-28, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES inquired whether Bonnie Williams wanted to testify on
HB 163 via teleconference from Fairbanks.
BONNIE WILLIAMS stated she had one comment regarding HB 163.
Unlike HB 130, this bill clearly specifies that the cost of
compliance happen before the public hearing. She thought the cost
of compliance definition in this bill could also be interpreted to
be a cost-benefit analysis as well, and said she had no problem
with this bill.
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone else wished to testify on this bill.
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, thought this bill raised some of the same concerns as HB
130. He said that simple changes that had a lot of common sense
appeal, deserved to be well thought out. He reiterated the
concerns of the Department of Law, that regulations lacking cost
estimates or with insufficient cost estimates will be a substantial
source of future litigation. He thought that even if a department
makes a good faith effort to comply with calculating a cost of
compliance analysis, they could still be challenged in court. He
remarked the Administration had no problem with the concept of
considering the impact of regulations on the public. He thought
this was the intent of the language in the drafting manual, that
wherever possible, the agencies should try to minimize those costs
of compliance. He thought the problem with HB 163, as it is
currently written, is that it creates an extra expense for the
agencies in doing this calculation and can be exploited by anyone
opposed to regulations.
Number 110
CHAIR JAMES stated she was trying to visualize what happens now
when a regulation is drafted and is interested in the
recommendation for doing a cost of compliance analysis in the
Department of Law's drafting manual. She thought the advantage of
HB 163, in making that recommendation a requirement, is that this
information would then be a matter of public record. This would
then give the public the opportunity to dispute the calculations of
the agency during the public hearing. She said she could
understand the concern that this could lead to future litigation,
as every time you add a layer to the process and further definition
to the regulation, you give greater latitude and cause for a
lawsuit. She thought that by leaving the regulation more open, you
give less cause for lawsuit. She thought the fact still remained
though, that under the current system, we are not providing any
standard of how it should be done, just recommending that a
calculation of cost compliance be done.
Number 152
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he thought this bill just
needed a provision that said if an agency makes a good faith effort
at establishing the cost of compliance, they will not be held
liable short of gross negligence for the results of that effort.
This would take care of any concern of future litigation caused by
this bill.
MR. KREINHEDER stated he thought this was a good suggestion, but he
would like to consult with the Department of Law. He thought there
could be a problem with a statute that puts something off limits to
legal challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that this would not put it off
limits to legal challenge, but just set up parameters that would
have to be met in any legal challenge. To challenge in court, an
individual would simply have to establish gross negligence in their
case.
MR. KREINHEDER thought this might solve the legal issues, but would
not solve the issue of additional cost to the agency. He found it
impractical to assume the agencies could do a proper cost analysis
for everyone who could possibly be affected by a regulation. He
cited an example given by the Department of Fish and Game, where
they could propose a regulation setting the size of fishing gill
nets, and for them to follow the letter of the law, they would have
to survey the fishermen to determine who owned that size net and
who would have to purchase one, the total number of fishing
vessels, etc. Thus, he was concerned that even with the allowance
of a good faith effort by the agency, that the legislature not pass
a law that would simply be a charade, or which agencies would have
no choice but to give lip service to. He thought there were
numerous examples to document that agencies could not possibly no
all of the people, who would be affected by a given regulation.
Additionally, many regulations do not prescribe what steps an
individual must follow to be in compliance with the regulation.
Number 229
CHAIR JAMES commented she had a different interpretation about what
this cost of compliance analysis really meant. She felt that, to
use his example of the fisherman's gill net, the agency would
calculate the cost of a new gill net for the fisherman who needed
to purchase one, and then any savings the fisherman would
experience. In summary, she felt a cost of compliance calculation
was the cost to an individual involved in a particular industry,
not the cost to the industry as a whole. Thinking in terms of a
cost benefit analysis, the cost of compliance to the individual
would be weighed against the benefit to the state as a whole, which
would give direction to the state as to how to act in a given
situation. She said it was the measurement of the cost of
compliance verses the benefit to the state, and whether we were
willing to accept that cost for that benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was of the opinion that the
Administrative Procedures Act had acted properly and withstood
challenge with regards to notice and putting those that will be
affected on notice about a proposed regulation. Thus, he did not
feel there would be the type of problem where the agency would have
to ask every fisherman whether they had a particular size of gill
net. He argued the agency would have to make the same type of
notification that was required now, and with a good faith effort to
listen to the testimony and then use logic to determine the cost of
implementation or compliance. He did not think it was that hard.
He thought that an agency listening to public testimony was good
for everyone. If everyone tried to make it work, there is a way to
do it.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN questioned whether these regulations could be
made flexible to allow the small businesses adjust to the costs of
the first year of implementation.
MR. KREINHEDER explained that he was reading the language of the
bill differently, as implying that the agency would have to
calculate the cost of compliance for the whole industry, not just
for an individual involved in that industry.
CHAIR JAMES agreed, saying she thought this was the cost of
compliance for the individual, and she felt the language was
prohibitive for anyone to interpret it differently, except as an
individual person who will be regulated by the proposed regulation.
That is the relative cost to determining whether a regulation will
put a person out of business or not. She asked if anyone else
would like to testify.
Number 336
PAM NEAL, President of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, stated
the chamber was very much in support of the legislation. It was a
prime concern of the chamber and they felt quite basic. No
business decision is made without a cost-benefit analysis. She
added that no one questioned the benefit of proposed legislation
being accompanied by a fiscal note, before being voted upon. It
seemed very basic that an agency proposing a new regulation should
do an analysis of the cost of compliance. Thus, they were very
much in support of HB 163.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how this bill would help her as a
business person in Alaska. She argued that even if she knew the
cost of a particular regulation, she would still have to comply.
Therefore, she failed to see the benefit of this bill.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought the benefit of this bill would be in
the agency having to justify the cost of their regulation showing
there would not be a more efficient way to comply.
CHAIR JAMES agreed, saying that by making this calculation a
requirement, it would allow the public the opportunity to comment
if the they feel the cost benefit ratio is out of sync. She felt
the agencies should give the public all of the information
available to be able to make a decision of whether they supported
the regulation or not.
MS. NEAL concurred, saying if the cost were not known to the
business community, they could not adequately make a decision about
a particular regulation. She felt this bill was extremely basic,
and failed to see why it had not been done before.
Number 414
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed with the intent of this bill, but felt
the reason this has not been done before is the concern over
litigation. He thought this could be fixed easily, and requests
the sponsor to amend HB 163 with the previously suggested wording
regarding gross negligence.
CHAIR JAMES asked the bill sponsor if they would be willing to
draft an amendment to HB 163, as suggested, and bring the amended
draft to the committee for consideration in a future meeting.
Number 429
MR. MOURANT said the sponsor would have no problem with drafting an
amendment, but would prefer the committee not hold the bill from
passing to the next committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought that in fairness, because the
committee had held HB 130, they should also hold HB 163 as they
dealt with similar issues.
MR. MOURANT thought he should reiterate the complaint of the
previous bill sponsor, that there had been former committee
meetings and a work session, where these bills were discussed and
no one from the Department of Law had expressed their concerns.
Thus, he to felt this could be intended to stall the passage of
these bills, and so was not sure how much cooperation he would
receive in getting this information from the Department of Law.
Additionally, he argued that no one from the Department of Law and
the Office of Management and Budget had contacted Representative
Kott or his office to express their concerns in advance. Thus, he
stated that bureaucrats have a way of holding up and killing any
bill that they desire.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought they had testified earlier at a
former committee meeting about their concerns.
CHAIR JAMES said she did not recall if they had or not. She would
have to review the record.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she would like to see not just a
calculation of the costs of compliance, but some type of relief for
extraordinarily large costs. She could understand if this bill
were not the proper vehicle for achieving this, but she would like
to see it accomplished.
MR. MOURANT agreed this bill does not provide relief by itself, but
said it does provide the opportunity for the private sector to
express their concerns while the regulation is still being drafted.
Number 482
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought that maybe the committee could work
to adopt wording in this bill, that would insure that it was
understood the agencies were not required contact everyone who
could be possibly regulated, but just a sample cross section of
those effected.
CHAIR JAMES asked how the committee wished to handle this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested the committee hold this bill until
corrected, as they had previously done with HB 130.
CHAIR JAMES agreed, and asked Representative Porter if he would be
willing to assist in drafting the suggested language.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would help to draft the needed
language.
Number 498
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other comments from the
committee. She mentioned she was concerned about the large fiscal
notes on this bill. She did not think the fiscal notes were a
proper reflection of the costs of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought the fiscal notes could be a result of
the agencies misunderstanding what the bill required of them.
Maybe by clarifying the language of bill, they could get fiscal
notes that more properly reflected the costs of the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 10:23 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|