SB 41 ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH/SAFETY AUDITS SENATOR LOREN LEMAN , sponsor of SB 41, gave the following overview. SB 41 is similar to SB 199, which passed the Senate last year and was in the House Finance Committee at the time of adjournment. Since then, he has worked with the Departments of Law, Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Labor to craft a new version. The Department of Labor disagrees with the concept of self-audits, and is concerned it will lose primacy in workplace safety matters. Most criticism of the bill is aimed at implementation, not the concept of self-auditing, privilege and immunity. He asked the committee to apply the concept to both environmental audits and workplace safety audits to enable businesses to come into higher compliance with both environmental and workplace laws. SB 41 creates two incentives to encourage businesses and other regulated entities to correct non-compliance with environmental or occupational health and safety regulations. The first incentive is limited immunity. Entities that conduct voluntary self-audits will be immune from civil and administrative penalties for violations discovered, provided the entity takes corrective action to prevent a recurrence. Immunity is not available for substantial off-site damage or on-site injury and several other minor conditions must be met. The second incentive is qualified privilege. The self- critical analysis contained in an audit report will be considered privileged and not admissible as evidence, or subject to discovery, in civil or administrative proceedings. This provision recognizes that an audit report is a self-incriminating document. It discovers problems and identifies what personnel or management deficiencies are responsible, and recommends corrective action. Number 114 SENATOR LEMAN continued. Studies show that many businesses opt not to conduct audits out of fear that the resulting reports will be used by agencies or hostile third parties for prosecution purposes. He discussed the results of a Price Waterhouse survey in 1995 in which 75 percent of 369 companies reported conducting self-audits; two-thirds of those conducting environmental self-audits would expand such programs if penalties were eliminated for identified and corrected problems. Among the companies not conducting audits, 20 percent fear the information will be used against them and 25 percent report attempts by outside parties to collect audit data. SENATOR LEMAN explained the immunity benefit can be overcome if asserted for a fraudulent purpose, or if the regulated entity has failed to take required actions to correct areas of non-compliance. SB 41 will be of greatest benefit to small businesses. Twenty other states have passed some form of self-audit legislation, and eight others are debating similar legislation. Number 156 SENATOR LEMAN noted proposed amendments have been submitted by DEC and the Department of Law, and industry members. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Senator Leman to highlight the differences between SB 41 and SB 199. SENATOR LEMAN replied most of the changes were editorial to simplify the language and reduce confusion. SB 199 included health and safety audits but that provision was removed in the House Labor and Commerce Committee last year. The changes to SB 41 have been iterations toward positions that the Department of Law and DEC are more comfortable with. Number 208 SENATOR PEARCE discussed the Department of Law's assertion that OSHA will revoke Alaska's 18E certification if SB 41 passes and asked whether that has happened in any other state with similar legislation. SENATOR LEMAN replied it has not because the other states did not include health and safety self-auditing in their legislation, with the exception of Texas. Texas, however, does not have 18E certification regarding its OSHA program therefore, Alaska would be blazing new ground. SENATOR LEMAN remarked he does not believe information received by the Department of Labor from federal agencies is conclusive regarding the loss of state primacy if SB 41 is enacted. He added the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has requested any references to it be eliminated from SB 41 so that self-audits do not apply to health facilities. Number 264 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted he has watched many small hospitals waste as much as one month per year doing audits for Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans' Administration, DHSS, and other certifying boards, all of whom audit using a similar checklist, but cannot share any of the information with each other. He believed eliminating any of those audits will reduce wasted medical resources and money. Number 286 RANDY RUEDRICH, Chairman of the Alaska Chapter of the Internationa Association of Drilling Contractors (IEDC), stated the self-audit concept, as embodied in SB 41, deserves favorable consideration from the Legislature this year. The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee version is a constructive step in regulatory reform however the IEDC is concerned the bill may not cover an independent contractor's disclosure of an audit of its own operations at a shared facility; the new self-audit privilege should be made applicable to these disclosures. In Alaska, owners of drilling rigs have improved their health and safety, and environmental, records for nearly three decades. IEDC believes SB 41 will allow the industry to concentrate on the reduction of the remaining deficiencies in the system, rather than focussing on the legal nuances of protecting audits and restricting the sharing of information with other entities in the workplace. IEDC has submitted four amendments for the committee's consideration. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Ruedrich to review written testimony submitted to the committee by the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility and respond at a later time. Number 381 CHRIS ROSS testified on behalf of the Alaska Safety Advisory Council. The Council specifically opposes the inclusion of the Department of Labor in SB 41, otherwise it has no position on the bill. The Council's concerns are twofold: first, providing employer immunity from audit discovery by the Department of Labor presumes there is a significant deterrent to self-audits in current law. That is a fallacy for several reasons. Companies with good safety systems routinely perform self-audits, companies without will be unlikely to conduct them in the future as a result of SB 41. SB 41 provides immunity only from the Department of Labor's ability to fine employers. There is no immunity from criminal, and much civil, litigation. Since the actual penalties, or threat of penalties, from the Department of Labor are small compared to the cost of litigation, there is little incentive to start performing audits for the sake of immunity. The sole reason for audits is to perform a measurement of existing safety systems. If there is no effective safety system in place, there is nothing to audit and nowhere in SB 41 is there an incentive for employers to develop effective safety systems. The second main issue deals with state funding of AKOSH. The Department of Labor has received a letter from OSHA's Acting Assistant Secretary indicating OSHA would assume a lead role in any investigation where immunity was invoked, if SB 41 is enacted. In general, employers prefer to deal with a state agency as opposed to a federal agency. If OSHA was called in on several occasions, it is conceivable it would assume control of the state compliance program and the state would lose 18E certification. The Council sees no benefit in the passage of SB 41 and believes it would cause overall harm to the existing safety and health system managed by the Department of Labor. Number 416 AL DWYER , Director for Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor, summarized written testimony submitted to committee members. Alaskan businesses have nothing to gain by the passage of CSSB 41(L&C): it will undermine the Alaska Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Program (AKOSH) by limiting the department's access to employer safety audits and by obstructing the department in its mission to penalize employers who disregard safety rules. While the intention of SB 41 is to enhance the safety of the worker, in reality it will tie the hands of the agency charged with protecting the worker from the few dishonest, unscrupulous employers who would hide behind the protection this bill provides. Allowing immunity from citations, and making safety audits privileged documents, could encourage the unscrupulous employer to disregard safety rules and would result in the government revoking Alaska's hard won 18E certification. OSHA could then conduct safety inspections in Alaska whenever an employer asserts the privilege or claims immunity. OSHA and the federal courts will not apply the audit privilege or immunity provisions in CSSB 41(L&C); consequently, Alaskan businesses will gain nothing from this bill. MR. DWYER explained the federal government monitored the Department of Labor on a quarterly basis for many years before granting 18E certification to the State. To turn over exclusive inspection authority to the State, OSHA had to be sure the State followed federal procedures for enforcement, citations, consultations, and the rest. Alaska was the third state to receive 18E certification. Since then, 23 states and two territories have state enforcement plans. If CSSB 41(L&C) passes, employers will have to deal with two enforcement agencies until OSHA decides to take over the program. If the Alaska Department of Labor has to deal with a privilege case, it will have to bring the case before a judge to have an evidentiary hearing, which is both time consuming and costly. Alaska would lose federal funding and both public and private sector enforcement. Currently, the federal program only oversees maritime safety issues. Number 470 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why less than half of the states have 18E certification, if it is so important. MR. DWYER responded it is very difficult to meet the match requirements. The consultation match is 90 percent federal, and 10 percent state. The enforcement match is 50/50. California eliminated their state program, but took it back one or two years later, at a tremendous cost, because employers did not like federal administration of the program. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned what difference it would make to an Alaskan business whether its neighbor enforces a federal law or someone from New Mexico, and why it took so long for Alaska to prove to OSHA it was capable of administering the program. MR. DWYER said Alaska had to prove that it could enforce the law blindfolded and that it would do a better job in consultation because the state is familiar with requirements here. The Department of Labor settles most of its cases before they become major confrontations and charges lower penalties than OSHA. Businesses deal with an Alaska review board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how the programs in the states without 18E certification are designed. MR. DWYER explained a lot of those states have 7C1 which covers consultation and training programs; enforcement remains with OSHA. Number 503 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the enforcement standards used in those states are the federal standards. MR. DWYER answered those states without enforcement programs do follow federal standards. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted if Alaska chooses not to have its own program, it would be bound by the federal standards, which in many instances are lower than the standards currently required by the Alaska Department of Labor. MR. DWYER replied the state has only a few rules that are more stringent than the federal standards; living space is one. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that would benefit a union that wants to bust an employer and increase living space - that same living space requirement is not applied in Wyoming or any other rural camp situation outside of Alaska. MR. DWYER said most of the people benefitting from the living space requirement are non-union and most union workers have a steward to watch out for their welfare. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR emphasized his concern is that we are setting up a different level of enforcement in Alaska. He commented DEC enforces significantly different standards than the federal standards, plus we are taking precious state dollars to do the work for the federal agency. He questioned whether losing 18E certification is bad if the state will end up enforcing basically the same standards. MR. DWYER stated the reason the state sought 18E certification was to involve Alaskans in the policy-making side. When imposing penalties on businesses, the Alaska Department of Labor takes a lot of things into consideration that Washington, D.C. does not. Number 530 JANICE ADAIR, Director of the Division of Environmental Health in DEC, testified via teleconference. DEC has been working cooperatively with Senator Leman and his staff on this bill. DEC believes some areas need correction and has submitted proposed amendments. SB 41 could impact DEC's primacy for the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Primacy of those programs allows for some flexibility in state implementation not allowed under the federal law. Implementation of the Clean Air Act is paid for by permitholders. The federal presumptive minimum is significantly higher than the amount charged by DEC, so if SB 41 is enacted, those fees could increase. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, DEC is able to issue waivers for monitoring requirements that EPA is unable to issue, as well as other things. Also, when Congress reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, it required primacy as a condition for access to the state revolving loan fund, which provides construction funds for primarily urban drinking water systems. The state's share of that fund, in 1998, will be about $27 million. If DEC loses primacy for that program, it will lose access to those funds. The Underground Injection Control Program, operated by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, could also be impacted by SB 41 as written. DEC has worked hard on SB 41 to provide businesses with the protection they feel is necessary to conduct self-audits, but needs to protect primacy and other aspects of environmental protection in the State. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Adair if DEC will support SB 41 if its proposed amendments are adopted. MS. ADAIR responded she is not familiar with all of the amendments that have been submitted, but if the final version of SB 41 addresses DEC's concerns, it will. She noted DEC agrees provisions regarding the Departments of Labor and Health and Social Services should not be included in the bill. Number 564 TOBY STEINBERGER , Assistant Attorney General, testified about the possible negative impacts passage of SB 41 will have on the AKOSH program. Congress passed the OSHA Act in the 1970s and gave the U.S. Department of Labor the authority to conduct workplace safety inspections, collect evidence, and fine employers who violate the law. That Act gave the U.S. Secretary of Labor the authority to authorize state programs, if state plans are as effective as federal plans. SB 41 would render AKOSH less effective in inspections and enforcement because it could no longer obtain evidence and businesses could claim immunity. OSHA would not be limited by those statutory provisions so would be more effective. There are several levels of certification, AKOSH has the highest (18E) which gives it exclusive jurisdiction to go into workplaces OSHA cannot. MS. STEINBERGER continued. If Alaska loses 18E certification, concurrent jurisdiction with OSHA will occur. Alaskan employers will not gain because they will lose immunities offered by the State, and OSHA will not recognize privilege. In addition, Alaska employers will no longer be dealing with the Alaska review board; hearings will be held before an administrative law judge. Currently, an employer can appeal a decision made by the Alaska review board to the Superior Court. Under SB 41, the employer will have to go before an administrative law judge from Seattle, then appeal the decision to the OSHA Review Commission in Washington, D.C., and then to the federal courts. There would be no advantage to the Alaskan employer. TAPE 97-11, SIDE B MS. STEINBERGER noted a similar bill was introduced before Congress several years ago. The Acting Secretary of Labor, Mr. Deere, testified against the bill. AKOSH believes the U.S. Department of Labor will come down hard on the first state to enact such legislation. Of the 26 states with approved plans, none have a law similar to SB 41. Many states have adopted laws pertaining to environmental self-auditing, but none have included health and safety, except for Texas. Texas does not have a state OSHA plan so its law does not affect federal enforcement. Number 557 STEVE TROSPER, Safety Director for Teamsters Local 959, testified via teleconference. Teamsters Local 959 is opposed to SB 41 for several reasons. Teamsters Local 959 is concerned about changes to its current relationship with management regarding health and safety in the workplace. That relationship is based on the position that worker safety should be taken out of the arena of confrontation and worked on cooperatively. To that end, it has implemented a policy of joint safety and health inspections, where union representatives conduct safety/health inspections with company safety representatives. It has been an effective tool for identifying hazards and establishing abatement periods. One advantage is that employers do not get fined for hazards that are uncovered and corrected. Occasionally, when employers are reluctant to comply with corrections, union representatives go to a regulatory agency to get issues addressed in a timely manner. That tool would be removed by SB 41 and, if an inspection was part of an audit, the immunities and privilege provisions might apply to union representatives, as well as the employer, as part of the audit team. Union representatives would have to establish themselves as a separate entity which goes against the cooperative arrangement they have been trying to develop over the last few years. MR. TROSPER said the Teamsters' response from AKOSH has been very good: AKOSH is cooperative, an excellent source of information, and not quick to impose fines when people are trying to work cooperatively. OSHA might be more likely to impose fines. OSHA considers violations by national companies as repeat offenses if a violation previously occurred in another state, and fines up to ten times as much for a second offense. The Teamsters believe SB 41 will negatively affect labor relations and suggests, as an alternative, encouraging small businesses to use AKOSH's voluntary inspection service. Number 491 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the Van Been case was ever resolved. MS. STEINBERGER responded it was. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if a union is participating in self-audits with an employer, whether the union might be placed in a position of liability with the employer. MR. TROSPER replied the Teamsters' concern is not with liability, but with its ability to maintain some control over the abatement period once a hazard has been recognized. If a voluntary audit was conducted and no corrections were made, the Teamsters, under the privileges and immunities clause in SB 41, could not go to AKOSH and request an inspection based on a recognized hazard, or a more reasonable abatement period. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the union representative would be better off not participating in audits, so that the representative could turn the employer in for uncorrected violations. MR. TROSPER agreed. Number 439 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR again questioned whether a liability issue exists for participants. MR. TROSPER answered his organization has an agreement with the employer that establishes the employer's responsibility for safety in the workplace. The Teamsters do not assume any liability for failing to uncover a hazard or for misrecognizing a hazard. He was unsure whether the Van Been decision was broad enough to cover third party audits. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that if an employee died as a result of a recognized hazard that had not yet been corrected, the employee's family could most likely sue members of the auditing team, including the union representative. MR. TROSPER thought Chairman Taylor was correct, and noted an employer, under SB 41, may believe he/she has immunity which will not exist at the federal level. He stated Mr. Ross believes the Van Been decision is specific to immunity for insurance inspectors. WAYNE COLEMAN , representing the Kodiak Island Borough on the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (RCAC) Board of Directors, testified via teleconference. RCAC supports the underlying goal of SB 41 and supports a cooperative approach to encourage regulated entities to find and correct environmental problems, however that goal can be met while still protecting the public's right-to-know and the government's responsibilities to enforce. SB 41 goes too far by granting blanket immunity from legitimate litigation for self-disclosed offenses; blanket immunity does not serve the public interest. RCAC suggests rewriting SB 41 to prohibit agencies from initiating civil or administrative litigation based solely on an environmental audit report, similar to EPA's policy. That policy ensures fairness to the regulated entity, and provides appropriate protections to the public. Number 356 NANCY WELLER , Division of Medical Assistance, DHSS, explained DHSS has two primary concerns with its inclusion in SB 41: certification and licensing of health facilities; and programs of surveillance, utilization review, provider fraud, and rate setting. DHSS licenses health facilities under State licensing laws and simultaneously certifies health facilities to receive Medicaid and Medicare payments. The facility surveyors review physical plans of facilities, and patient care and financial records to determine whether care is provided in a safe way and appropriately documented. The entities are encouraged to do complete program reviews and self-audits. If routine access to documentation is prevented, potentially life-threatening situations could go undetected and federally required verification that Medicaid services were correctly provided and billed could not occur. In addition, a provider could claim an audit privilege and prevent the division from imposing sanctions related to program abuse. Federal regulations require recoupment of Medicaid overpayments made to a provider. The State would be unable to collect funds it is required to return to the federal government within 60 days of identification. The Medicaid Rate Advisory Commission sets rates for health facilities and is concerned that the Commission's ability to set rates could be impacted by an inability to secure facility records. Lack of access to these documents could prevent rate compliance with the federal Borne amendment to ensure that payments relate to economically and efficiently operated facilities. DHSS believes SB 41 needs to be amended to delete references to it in order to protect the significant public investment in the Medicaid program and guarantee the health of Alaskans who receive care in health facilities. Number 317 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated the Attorney General's opinion on behalf of DHSS cited several bothersome examples - one a case of a young woman who was scalded to death in a bath - and a case where five of eight residents in one nursing home facility were found underweight from malnutrition, with one close to death. He asked who conducted the audits on those facilities during the few years prior to the discovery of the inadequate conditions. MS. WELLER replied the malnutrition situation went undetected by the facility until DHSS surveyors made their annual licensing visit, and in the case of the scalding, the water temperature mixer was malfunctioning. The problem had been identified but corrective action was not taken. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why no employee checked the temperature before immersing the patient. MS. WELLER was unsure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented DHSS's audit procedure is to take action when a patient is near death or dead. MS. WELLER responded in those specific situations, had SB 41 been enacted, the facilities could have conducted self-audits and kept the information from state surveyors. Had the surveyors been unable to review patient nutrition records, the problem may have gone uncorrected. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the facilities were run by the State. MS. WELLER replied the facilities are privately owned. Number 265 SENATOR PEARCE asked if SB 41 provides immunity only when a problem has been identified and corrected, which would not apply to the cases cited. SENATOR LEMAN answered that is correct; SB 41 grants limited immunity and privilege, one of the conditions being correction of identified problems within a reasonable time limit. SENATOR PEARCE asked if DHSS can continue to review records and reports but not use that information as evidence in court. SENATOR LEMAN clarified the entity would submit a report to DHSS of identified deficiencies and a compliance schedule. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR added DHSS could not take action to fine or penalize the entity when a report is voluntarily filed because the immunity provision immunizes the entity from the enforcement tools that might be assessed. SENATOR PEARCE remarked no immunity is available for violations that are knowingly committed or that result from recklessness; both examples cited by the Attorney General could be considered reckless therefore would not be immune. SENATOR PARNELL noted on page 7, line 11, the bill reads immunity is not available if the violation results in substantial injury of one or more persons at the site audited, which would cover the cases cited. Number 200 SENATOR PEARCE commented in trying to take care of problems the departments have that are reasonable, the examples cited by the Department of Law created a paper chase. MARIE SANSONE , Assistant Attorney General, testified primarily on the provisions in SB 41 related to compliance with environmental regulations. The Department of Law has provided Senator Leman with a number of amendments, its concerns are as follows: 1. Remove references to DHSS and the Department of Labor. 2. Tighten the term "health and safety," used throughout SB 41, to narrow the scope of the bill and exclude municipal ordinances. 3. Change the trigger for the privilege and immunity exception section. To trigger exceptions, a request must be made before a judge. If an administrative hearing is occurring for a permit issuance or revocation, for example, SB 41 requires the administrative proceeding to stop, and a court to rule on the exceptions. This system could be costly and result in delays. 4. Extend the exceptions for substantial injury to people on- site or off-site, or to property or the environment off-site, to include circumstances where there is imminent or present threat of serious or substantial injuries. 5. Change the burden of proof on privilege when determining whether an exception applies as that burden is insurmountable without access to privileged information. DOL proposes that the person seeking disclosure go forward, make a prima facie case that the exception applies, at which point the burden would shift back to the person trying to protect the information. 6. SB 41 requires self-auditing entities to correct violations. DOL feels an additional condition should be that entities with violations causing injury, or risk of injury, should be required to take necessary steps to abate the violation and mitigate the damages immediately. 7. The Labor and Commerce Committee substitute omitted an exception for tariff cases which rely on environmental, health and safety audits to establish proper tariffs. 8. DOL proposed an amendment relating to federal trigger language which would have required the CEO of the federal agency involved to notify the commissioner of the relevant department, in writing, that a state program, as a result of the self-audit privilege, was inconsistent with federal requirements. 9. The definition of "audit" needs to be corrected, as well as other overall corrections for the purpose of clarification. SUE SCHRADER , Executive Director of the Alaskan Environmental Lobby (AEL), testified. AEL supports the goal of SB 41 but does not believe it will encourage businesses to self-audit, correct problems, and protect workers. Regulated industries have had ample opportunity to self-audit. Those businesses that have done so have found it to be economically and competitively advantageous. Unfortunately many companies do not take responsibility for their actions, and SB 41 will make it easier for those companies to continue non-compliance. AEL believes SB 41 will keep information vital to public health and safety hidden from review by the agencies we depend on to enforce health and safety laws. It will also keep that same information hidden from the legal system we rely on to remedy violations of these laws. SB 41 will have a chilling effect on the employee's ability to speak the truth about what is going on in the workplace when they are faced with reprisal by their employer. The concerned worker who speaks out will find himself without the ability to access the documents needed to defend him/herself against retaliation from employers. SB 41 is a bill of amnesty and will allow industries to conceal or condone non-compliance. The sponsor is making the assumption that if a self-audit reveals non-compliance, that entity will come forth and correct the underlying problem. AEL suggests reviewing EPA's policy for self-policing, and crafting simple legislation to provide clear incentives through leniency, definite time windows, and no privilege provision. Number 97-12, SIDE A Number 034 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated Ms. Schrader is advocating that corporate polluters be required to take responsibility for their actions, and asked her whether that should be applied to everyone. MS. SCHRADER replied it should. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented he has asked for AEL's membership list many times over the last 10-12 years but was always told the list is not public. SENATOR PEARCE commented that previous speakers have expressed concern about SB 41's impact on worker disclosure of workplace violations and asked Senator Leman if the bill contains a provision to prevent workers from disclosing violations. SENATOR LEMAN responded there is nothing in the bill to prevent workers from disclosing uncorrected violations, and it would be a very unwise business policy to try to hide uncorrected violations. A company may conduct a self-audit and not file it with an agency, but SB 41 will not provide immunity or privilege. It is not to a business's advantage to hide problems that could cause damage or injury. Number 165 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Ruedrich to respond to the Alaska Forum's letter to the committee, and specifically to Ms. Ott's allegation about Doyon Drilling. MR. RUEDRICH remarked none of the aspects of whistleblowing protection will be modified by SB 41. Individuals will be free to proceed to take any actions available today. With respect to corporate responsibility and accountability being converted to secrecy and diminished, the limited immunity and privilege provisions would be given to entities after deficiencies are disclosed and problems corrected. There is a higher likelihood problems will be corrected in order to get immunity and privilege. SB 41 proposes to improve the workplace for the employee, employer, and the people of the State. Number 195 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Senator Leman to provide the committee with a package of the proposed amendments he supports at Wednesday's meeting, and have the other proposed amendments prepared in a packet as well. SENATOR PEARCE asked Senator Leman to discuss whether SB 41 will jeopardize Alaska's 18E certification. SENATOR LEMAN said he believes the threat of revocation is real, but it does not need to be. OSHA is responding to requests from, and corroborating with, Alaska's Department of Labor, but they are misrepresenting what needs to be done. As long as the state law is as effective as the federal requirements, we should not be in jeopardy of losing primacy, which he does not advocate. Alaska can demonstrate, especially with passage of SB 41, it can be as effective as the federal program. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated his intent to have the committee review packets of amendments on SB 41 and pass the bill out as amended, rather than have a committee substitute drafted at this time. He adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m.