HB 140-NOTICE FOR REGULATION ADOPTION  2:24:14 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 140, "An Act relating to the information that must be included with certain notices provided for the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation." 2:24:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 140, Version 28-LS0478\C, Bannister, 3/26/13, as the work draft. CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion purposes. 2:25:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the sponsor of HB 140, began by noting that the legislation had been changed in response to members' concerns. She then reminded the committee that the current law specifies that the agency promulgating a regulation has to specify the impacts of that regulation on the agency. However, the agency promulgating the regulation doesn't have to access the impacts to other state agencies, municipalities, or the private sector. Representative Reinbold then turned over the presentation of Version C to staff. 2:27:23 PM KRISTA VONBERGEN, Staff, Representative Lora Reinbold, Alaska State Legislature, reviewing Version C, explained that Section 1 is unchanged as is the language on page 1, line 6 through page 2, line 1. However, language in Section 2 has been changed to include a new notice requirement with which agencies will have to comply when announcing regulations. The requirement will require agencies, in a sentence or two, to identify which regulations in a package are required/mandated by federal law. She ventured that compliance with the aforementioned requirement should be easy for the agencies to meet since they already have to know whether a federal regulation/law requires them to take action before they even begin drafting the regulation. At the beginning of the regulatory process, agencies know whether and which regulations in their packages are required or mandated in federal law. Section 2 merely requests they share that already compiled information with Alaskans. Section 2 also adds language requiring state agencies to include notice to the public of the good faith estimate of the costs imposed by the new regulations on private individuals, businesses, state agencies, and municipalities. Ms. Vonbergen highlighted that the aforementioned is an important part of the legislation because existing law only requires state agencies promulgating regulations to review the impacts and costs to that agency. She clarified that this review isn't intended to be a detailed McDowell Group level analysis of the estimated costs of regulations. Instead, the language simply requires a good faith effort by the agency to estimate the costs in the aggregate. Version O, she pointed out, includes a new section, Section 3, which clarifies that there is no right to sue based on the agency's duties to prepare an estimate. Therefore, Section 3 clarifies that it's an informational effort for the benefit of Alaskans and not for the litigation battlefield. Section 4 was Section 3 in the original legislation and makes it clear that the notice for requirements in the legislation only apply to regulations announced after the effective date of the legislation. 2:31:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the current effective date is adequate for purposes of the state complying with the requirements in HB 140. 2:32:50 PM STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said he isn't in a position to speak to particular state agencies regarding whether they would be able to get up to speed on this proposal or not. Although a delayed effective date certainly might be helpful, it would be partially dependent upon the information each state agency has on hand. 2:34:10 PM ARNOLD LEIBELT, Policy Analyst, Office of the Management & Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, regarding whether the effective date of the legislation should be delayed, answered that it depends upon the type of legislation [from which regulations would be promulgated], which is why the OMB fiscal note is indeterminate. He opined that the legislation adds another level of complexity that is responsibilities for agencies, particularly those departments that tend to have more regulations than others. For example, the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries receive up to 400 proposals per year, so the proposal in this legislation would be more difficult to implement than others. Therefore, it's difficult to speculate. 2:35:32 PM CHAIR KELLER questioned whether that means OMB isn't concerned with the potential costs. MR. LIEBELT replied no, OMB is concerned with the costs. In fact, the notice requirements for the regulations specify that agencies and departments must pay particular attention to the costs of regulations. Currently, state agencies are responsible for identifying the cost impact of the regulations to the impacted state agency alone. Through the public hearing process the cost is revealed from municipalities, industry, and individuals. That cost information provided during the public hearing process is taken into consideration when the regulations are drafted. 2:36:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out the language in Section 2(d)(1) only refers to the federal court as one that might impose a regulatory requirement. He questioned whether a state court should also be included in the ambit of the legislation. The state would know if it was something imposed by the legislature. However, the state might not know for a period of time whether a state court might have imposed that. He reminded the committee that the annual book members receive includes briefs for which legislative action may be required by a court decision. He opined that [HB 140] is doing the same thing to administrative agencies, and thus it may be a number of months until the annual report is available before the legislature knows what the Superior Court in Anchorage had done. Representative Gruenberg suggested that adding state courts to the legislation may be something to consider. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she would accept such an amendment. 2:39:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that typically a short title isn't given to legislation that simply amends other legislation. Therefore, he inquired as to whether the sponsor is wedded to having the proposed short title for HB 140. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD replied yes as she believes the proposed short title is important to have. 2:40:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD then offered her understanding that federal agencies [already have to do what HB 140 proposes]. For example, the federal agencies have to determine whether proposed regulations impose an information collection burden. Therefore, the proposal in HB 140 merely shadows what is already in place at the federal level. She then highlighted letters of support for HB 140, including letters from the Wasilla Area Seniors, Inc., the National Federation of Independent Business - Alaska, and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. Representative Reinbold emphasized her desire to avoid the "little guy" getting overwhelmed by the process due to oversight or unintended consequences. The legislation, she pointed out, includes a no harm clause as well as an aggregate [of the impacts]. She also highlighted that the Alaska Municipal League (AML) is very supportive of HB 140. 2:41:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Page 1, line 12, following "federal" Insert "or state" REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the legislation should also apply to state courts. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:43:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 140, Version 28- LS0478\C, Bannister, 3/26/13, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 140(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.