HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS  1:32:02 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR CLAMAN advised that subsequent to the 2/9/18 hearing, the committee received a memorandum on the topic of the "Alaska Grown" program and how it relates to HB 315. Chair Claman advised Joan Wilson, Department of Law of the questions regarding the intersection between HB 315 and the "Alaska Grown" program and asked how many times the DOL had been involved in civil enforcement actions regarding the "Alaska Grown" program. 1:33:39 PM JOAN WILSON, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial and Fair Business Section, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), responded that the question of enforcement relates to the Division of Agriculture and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) interest in the "Alaska Grown" trademark the state holds. She explained that when farmers or ranchers would like their products to carry that logo, they apply to the Division of Agriculture for a license and under that license agree to use the logo accurately. For example, when used for livestock, that livestock must be grown and raised in Alaska for six months. In the event someone should attempt to violate the program, the enforcement action is to withdraw their use of the trademark and withdraw their licensing rights to the trademark. She noted that she has not seen a civil enforcement action or any type of criminal action, and that it would be stretch to turn a misrepresentation claim into a criminal act, but good prosecutors can do many things. In essence, this will be "our efforts" to protect the trademark, and in the event people have concerns regarding abuse of the trademark they should contact the Division of Agriculture because it works directly with ranchers and/or the sellers of the product to make certain there has been no misuse of the trademark. In the event there are concerns about (audio difficulties) the steps are withdrawing their participation in the program, she reiterated. 1:35:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the limited resources in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and asked whether there had been discussions regarding allocating additional resources so some of those enforcement actions or prosecutions might take place in the future. MS. WILSON answered that she could not say there have been discussions to date, and she has not heard that enforcement of this program caused concern that the division did not have the staff or the expertise. Again, she said, the main attempt is to make sure it is simply not an error on a person's part because the division is trying to develop a cooperative relationship with its farmers and ranchers to make sure that trademark is used appropriately. 1:36:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario of a business owner selling meat that may or may not have come from Alaskan grown products, but they wanted to demonstrate their pride in being an Alaskan. In that regard, he said, the person has a label behind the counter that read, "Alaska Grown" even though he sold meats from one place and meats from Alaska. He asked whether the department would view that as a violation, a cause of concern, or simply interpreted it as the person is proud to be an Alaskan. MS. WILSON quiered whether Representative Eastman's scenario was a situation where someone was selling "Alaska Grown" meats in a grocery store, for example. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was thinking of a person selling meats, some of which are Alaska grown and some of which are not, but the store owner wanted to demonstrate his pride for "Alaska grown things" so he posted an "Alaska Grown" type of label somewhere in his store. He asked whether that would be considered a violation. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether his question was that if a person sold pork that fit within the "Alaska Grown" definition and some pork that did not fit, and there was an "Alaska Grown" sign in the shop, whether that person violated the trademark. MS. WILSON noted that that actual circumstance had taken place previously wherein the division worked with the retailers to make certain they were properly advertising. Again, she said, the first approach is to assume a person made a mistake and work with them so they credibly and correctly use that trademark. In Representative Eastman's scenario, she said she would have to see if the (audio difficulties) held the trademark, and in most cases, it would be the farmer or the rancher. She offered concern regarding any licensing in that manner, and that when it has been used in a commercial enterprise, the entity must be licensed to even carry that sign to advertise the meat. 1:39:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that DNR is focused on preventing future violations, and that possibly it is not as focused on holding people to task or pursing sanctions for something brought to their attention, even if it might be a violation. MS. WILSON clarified that the department takes the program and enforcement of the trademark seriously. Simply because the division's first attempt is education, that does not mean the division will not withdraw a license to use that trademark if someone was treating that trademark nefariously, REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that having looked at the information to become confidential, he did not see how making the information as to whether an item had been imported into Alaska would be considered confidential. 1:41:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that this is a good piece of legislation because it will increase reporting of possible health hazards to the public, whether it deals with animals or crops, the whole goal is to increase reporting. Although, he pointed out, due to competitive practice there is a big disincentive to report. He opined that the whole confidentiality issue had been correctly crafted where if, in fact, a health hazard is found to exist, the information then becomes public, and there are ways to disclose that information. He described it as confidential information when a person deals with the Office of the State Veterinarian (OSV) regarding their crops and animal health data unless there is a hazard that pushes that information out into the public record. 1:42:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 315, Version 30-GH2584\A out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 1:42:41 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Millett, Kopp and Claman voted in favor of passing HB 315 out of committee. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, HB 315 was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.