SB 27-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE  CHAIR CON BUNDE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Present were Senators Ralph Seekins, Hollis French, Bettye Davis and Chair Con Bunde. The first order of business to come before the committee was SB 27. SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 27(L&C), version \D, for discussion purposes. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIR BUNDE pointed out the changes, which are the result of an agreement between the administration and the bill's sponsor. On page 1, line 9, the registration fee is changed to $80; page 2, line 10, adds a new subsection that requires the department to compile and make available on the Internet a list of pesticides registered for use in the state; page 2, line 30, defines notice of spraying on properties adjacent to the location; page 4, line 24, says the department "shall" conduct this study; page 6, line 19, refers to development of the household survey to be used by the department to gather information relating to household pesticides; page 7, line 6, makes the appointments to the board effective immediately; page 8, line 9, removes a section; page 8, line 20, removes the Pesticide Advisory Board; and page 9, sections 7 - 9, make the effective date June 30, 2008. MS. GARAN TARR, Chief of Staff to Senator Johnny Ellis, acknowledged the changes iterated by Chair Bunde and said that the CS is supported by the administration, the department and Senator Ellis. SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked why the effective date is delayed. MS. TARR explained that the Pesticide Board didn't have an end point…the original bill was created with three-year staggered terms. The department felt that added a layer of bureaucracy that it wasn't interested in maintaining for the long-term. So, it was agreed that the board would become responsible for tangible results like development of the household survey, helping implement the tracking program, and help retail establishments with the notification component. Once those things were done, it would be appropriate to sunset the board and the department would maintain what it had put in place. SENATOR FRENCH acknowledged her answer and then pointed out that changing the registration fee from $150 to $80 is one of the major changes and asked how that number was chosen. MS. TARR replied that the nationwide average is actually $135 and the sponsor wanted to stay with that higher number because the extra revenue could have gone to other important programs the department maintains or into the general fund. However, the department felt more comfortable with the $80 fee. A consumer group wrote a letter saying that manufacturers would be comfortable with a fee that paid for the program, but didn't feel they should be charged in excess of that. The $80 fee pays for all that. SENATOR FRENCH asked if she was able to win industry support for the bill's changes. MS. TARR answered that she wasn't sure they were jumping on board, even with the changes, but they felt $80 was a more appropriate fee. She has every reason to believe the department will make implementation of the program easy for industry, especially with use of the Internet. MR. EVERETT WALTON, American Pest Management, said that until a competitor called an hour ago to tell him about it, he didn't know anything about the bill and asked that industry be given more notification in the future. He said his company might buy only $100 worth of a certain chemical in a whole year and the $80 registration fee would not be practical in that instance. The chemicals his company deals with are some of the most modern with the least toxicity available. New York and California can charge a $135 fee because they have 30 million or 40 million people, but there are only 600,000 people in Alaska - mostly in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan - in many instances, small companies wouldn't have incentive to do any registration at all. Right now they are doing blanket registrations because it's free. If they have to pick and choose, they might just decide that it's too much trouble, because there's no profit margin there and that is a concern I have. MR. WALTON also pointed out that most of the bill is already covered by existing municipal or state statutes. All this bill will do is add to the cost of doing business and it has no enforcement provisions. He said the same groups pushing this issue are trying to stop development all over the state. Of the seven or eight companies in Alaska, only two have more than one employee. He also thought that the big chain stores like Fred Meyer and Wal-Mart should have been invited to have input on this bill. In response to communities that do not want aerial spraying, he pointed out that Nebraska has the longest life expectancy in the nation and also has one of the highest spraying rates. A DEC tracking system is okay with him, but he didn't want to have to add a person to the payroll just to feed information to the state. CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the bill has two more committees to go through and there was a substantial amount of time for input on these issues. MS. KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said the pesticide program is in the laboratory services component of the department's budget. The registration fees are in alignment with other states and would be sufficient to cover costs for the Pesticide Advisory Board, creating the web-based information system for pesticide use and doing a household use survey of pesticides. Alaska is currently the only state without a pesticide fee. CHAIR BUNDE asked if she felt the $80 fee would be burdensome to the point of eliminating the availability of pesticides in Alaska. MS. RYAN replied that she didn't think so. Many pesticides are registered because their companies want to be able to say they are registered in 50 states. If their chemical is not used here, there is no point in doing so if they would have to pay a fee. She expected a certain amount of attrition of pesticides names, but not their use. CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that the department is not making money on the $80 fee. It's not a hidden tax. MS. RYAN said the CS has a new fiscal note and explained the state has primacy and employs four staff people. The state contributes a $56,000 match for the revenues it receives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SENATOR GARY STEVENS arrived at 1:55 p.m. SENATOR FRENCH asked if this bill would require new labeling by stores like Wal-Mart. MS. RYAN replied yes. It would require a placard to be posted for certain chemicals the department thought needed additional warning. Homeowners are the ones who misuse chemicals most often; commercial applicators are certified and it's their business to apply them correctly. SENATOR FRENCH asked her if she thought Round Up would be required to have a placard. MS. RYAN replied that she didn't know, but a recent Washington state court decision required that to occur for 10 - 15 pesticides. SENATOR FRENCH commented that he was trying to get a handle on the burden this law would put on retailers and asked her what pesticides are commonly used. MS. RYAN replied that she didn't have any idea right now. Over 500 are registered for use in the state. Maybe 10 percent would be required to have that placard. SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked if farmers or landowners are required to register their use of pesticides either by the state or the federal government. MS. RYAN replied that the registration process is a responsibility of the product maker. A product cannot be used or sold in a state where it is not registered. A farmer would be an applicator and is required by the federal government to be certified to use certain pesticides. The state has the additional responsibility, in regulation, to require a permit for spraying by airplane or helicopter. If one farmer were to spray multiple farmers' properties, he would need to get a permit. SENATOR SEEKINS asked if section 5 would require a farmer or private landowner to give notice of applying pesticides. MS. RYAN answered that only certified applicators have to give notification. CHAIR BUNDE said he would hold the bill for more information on its impact to retailers. SENATOR SEEKINS asked why information listed on page 6, line 2, was being gathered if it wasn't going to be regulated in the future. CHAIR BUNDE referred the question to Ms. Ryan to answer when the bill came up in committee again.