HB 216-REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS  9:18:57 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to deadlines in bills directing the adoption of regulations and to the informative summary required for the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation." 9:19:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, as sponsor, offered a review of HB 216, which the committee previously heard on 4/12/11. In response to the chair, she said attached to HB 216 is an undetermined fiscal note. She said the bill would do two things: direct the legislature to set a time by which agencies must put regulations in place, and require understandable explanations of new or amended regulations. Representative P. Wilson said those two changes would help the legislature and the public to know what is going to happen and to have time to respond. She said the descriptive summaries provided by agencies are not meant to be lengthy or legally binding, and an amendment would take care of that concern. She posited that although the bottom line cost is yet unknown, the proposed legislation is still worthwhile. 9:25:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the Office of the Attorney General recommended an amendment to exempt boards and commissions from the strict time limit, because they typically meet only once or twice a year, and an amendment that would protect agencies from being sued if they published summaries deemed inadequate by a citizen. She said another issue to consider is the cost to some agencies, which are required to pay by the line for summaries in the newspaper. 9:26:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, lines 4 - 5: Delete "include a summary of the existing  regulation as well as a summary of the change proposed  by the amendment or repeal" Insert "also describe how the amendment or repeal  will change the existing regulation" REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that Amendment 1 was recommended by the Office of the Attorney General. 9:28:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:28:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as follows: Page 2, line 7, following "understand": Insert "without following Internet links to the  Alaska Administrative Code" REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON spoke to the amendment. She offered her understanding that Amendment 2 addresses a concern that Representative Seaton had once had. 9:29:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 9:29:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, to exempt boards and commissions from the strict time limit. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the need for Conceptual Amendment 3, because he offered his understanding that the time frames would be set on a case by case basis. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said Conceptual Amendment 3 was requested by the Office of the Attorney General, but she added that she can see Representative Seaton's point. She ventured it would be up to the committee to decide. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he objects to the exemption, because he thinks the legislature will make the consideration as to what is a reasonable time frame. 9:33:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that three House State Affairs Standing Committee members are on the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and he suggested that the issue can be addressed there. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that would be fine, but said he would like to hear from someone from the Department of Law, if possible. 9:34:22 AM STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General (AG), Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), explained that the thought behind the boards and commissions exemption was to address situations where certain boards that meet infrequently might find themselves with insufficient time to adopt regulations in the time frame suggested by the legislature. He said beyond that the department does not really have a position on the proposed legislation. He related that if the committee would like to consider Representative Seaton's point or another direction, the department is willing to work with the bill sponsor. In response to a question from Representative Keller, Mr. Weaver said in some cases it might not be difficult for DOL, the agencies, and the legislature to ascertain the amount of time it will take to adopt regulations; however, sometimes the amount of time may vary, for example, if there is a comprehensive bill involving more interaction between the legislature, the agencies, and DOL. 9:38:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she will work with DOL. 9:41:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the word "must", on page 1, line 7, and he questioned whether it would be problematic if each time the legislature passes a bill "they" have to figure out how long it will take to generate the regulations. He then mentioned that there are statutes that address the issue of fiscal notes - not only regarding how much money is needed to implement the bill, but also how the bill will be implemented by the agency - and he questioned whether there should be a conforming amendment to the fiscal note statute that would require the agency submitting the fiscal note to recommend how much time it will need to come up with the regulation. He said he thinks that would help provide the evidentiary basis and the record for the legislature. 9:43:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN noted that many laws passed have effective dates in them, and he asked if, under HB 216, the legislature would have to assign regulation deadline dates. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON replied that she prefers the idea to have the specification made in the fiscal note, because it would be an expectation rather than a law. MR. WEAVER, in response to Representative Petersen, said all regulations originate through the agencies. 9:45:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, to insert the following language where appropriate [original punctuation provided]: "an action may not be brought for failure of the  notice to comply with requirements of this paragraph  relating to the description in or the clarity and  readability of the summary;" REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the language of Conceptual Amendment 4 was suggested by DOL. She described the language as a disclaimer. 9:48:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Conceptual Amendment 4. He said there were a series of cases relating to the attorney general's summaries of initiatives. He said in some cases the courts have struck those down as inaccurate. He said, "This would provide a blanket immunity in all those cases." He emphasized that this issue should be considered by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and he requested that Representative P. Wilson withdraw Conceptual Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 4. 9:49:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern regarding language on page 2, lines 3-7, which read as follows: if the proposed agency action is to amend or repeal an  existing regulation, the informative summary must  include a summary of the existing regulation as well  as a summary of the change proposed by the amendment  or repeal; the informative summary shall be written in  clear, easily readable language that a person without  a legal background is able to understand; REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that an amendment may be necessary to include regulation that is adopted in response to legislation, as well as just changing regulation. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the adopted Amendment 1 changed that language, but noted that the word "if" is still in there. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he thinks "we should include the other possibility in there." 9:51:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said one of the largest problems legislators face in receiving e-mail notices of bills is that the change effected by the bill is not made clear. He said he would like the bill to require a notice that clearly outlines the change being made through the legislation. CHAIR LYNN asked the bill sponsor if that is acceptable to her. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded yes. 9:53:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that HB 216 is a good bill. He said as former chair of the regulation review committee, he appreciates the time it takes to get to the crux of legislation. He expressed his willingness to work with the bill sponsor to improve the proposed legislation. He said agencies have been improving their notification of regulations, but the legislature really needs to "get on the stick and pay attention." 9:54:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 216, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 216(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.