HB 34 - FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS & EXEC. ORDERS  1:11:13 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 34,"An Act making state compliance with a federal law, regulation, or presidential executive order contingent on receipt of certain information from the federal government." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 34, Version 28-LS0195\C, Nauman, 1/30/13, adopted as the working document on 2/25/13.] 1:11:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, offering her understanding of what would be required under [Version C of] HB 34, indicated disfavor with the indeterminate fiscal note submitted by the [Office of Management & Budget (OMB)] for the bill. She referred to the language on page 2 of the OMB's fiscal note - dated 03/13/2013 - that read in part: If a federal law has a significant impact, then staff, and very likely economic consultants, may need to be hired to determine the impact on the state and all of the state's communities and industries. There are just under 250 communities in Alaska. Assessing the economic impact to these communities is not a function that agencies are typically staffed to perform. State employees implement and execute federal and state programs and cooperative agreements. They are not required to assess the economic impacts to communities and industry. Individual communities are responsible for providing this information to the legislature directly if they choose to do so. For a department to provide this information would be a tremendous undertaking and would require additional staff and consultants, depending on the requirements of the law, regulation, or presidential executive order. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that such analyses should have already been being performed by the state before any federal funding was accepted, particularly given the impact on Alaska's communities. 1:17:09 PM STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said that the DOL is not taking a position on HB 34, but has concerns regarding the bill's potential future impact on the executive branch of state government. Specifically, there is a concern regarding the significant costs related to evaluating [federal laws, regulations, and presidential executive orders] to the extent required under [Version C] - including the cost of [hiring additional staff and consultants] with the necessary expertise; a concern related to identifying just which information would be necessary in order for the state to compile the reports required under the bill, particularly given the state's lack of access to information obtained at the local level or by private industry; and a concern related to the delay inherent in conducting the type of analysis required under the bill, in that such delay could result in a loss of federal funding or in missing the construction season - in turn negatively impacting local government and private industry. In conclusion she said that the DOL understands the intent of the bill's sponsor and would be willing to work with her to achieve her goals. MS. KRALY, in response to questions, relayed that evaluating federal regulations as required under the bill raises a concern with regard to having to wait until any such regulations are actually promulgated; that Version C of HB 34 is still unclear with regard to how the state shall comply with the bill's requirements and what shall trigger compliance; and that the bill doesn't yet define the terms, "economic effect" as used on page 1, line 10, or describe the scope of the required report. Changing the bill to address those issues could be helpful, she acknowledged, and again indicated a willingness to work with the sponsor. CHAIR KELLER ascertained that the representative from the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) had nothing further to add to Ms. Kraly's comments. 1:32:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to HB 34 as a great idea, questioned whether it goes far enough, in that it doesn't yet address situations wherein local governments and communities and private industry must comply with state laws, regulations, and gubernatorial executive orders. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred; noted that the terms "community" and "industry" as used on page 1, line 11, are also not yet defined in the bill; and suggested that the applicability section of the bill be changed such that the bill would apply to laws, regulations, and orders implemented 180 days after the bill becomes effective. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged those points, and reiterated that she'd thought the state was already conducting the type of analyses that would be required under [Version C of] the bill. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that perhaps the term, "industry" could be changed to the term, "person" because that term is currently defined in statute as including entities other than individual persons. 1:43:04 PM MIKE COONS said he supports the intent of HB 34, though he expressed a preference for the original version of the bill. 1:47:09 PM CHARLES EDWARDS said he concurs with Mr. Coons's comments. CHAIR KELLER noted that members' packets contain information about certain federal requirements impacting the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON, in conclusion, predicted that the administration won't be happy with any forthcoming proposed CS for HB 34 because it, too, would entail more work for the administration; and remarked: "Sometimes we might have to spend some money to find out that information, but I think overall we'll make better choices, and maybe choices we should have been making in the first place." [HB 34, Version C, was held over.]