SSTA - 3/28/95 SB 110 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 110 as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. Number 043 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to adopt the State Affairs Committee substitute for SB 110. Number 051 SENATOR DONLEY introduces and explains a proposed amendment to SB 110 (9-GS0006\A.1, Bannister, 3/24/95). The amendment would increase the public notice required before regulations can be adopted. Senator Donley informs the committee that the administration is opposed to this amendment. Number 110 SENATOR DONLEY makes a motion to adopt Amendment #1 to SB 110. Number 115 SENATOR LEMAN expresses concern that the amendment does not apply to regulations necessary to meet federal requirements. We need to fight back and not allow the federal government to over-run us. CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Ms. Williams if she would like to testify on the amendment. Number 135 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, testifying from Anchorage, thinks the amendment would increase the cost of the regulatory process because of additional advertising and additional board and commission meetings. She states the original intent of SB 110 was as a cost-saving measure, while the amendment would increase state costs. Ms. Williams also thinks the amendment would complicate the regulatory process enough so that beneficial changes to proposed regulations will not be made. For that reason, she thinks it might adversely affect public input. MS. WILLIAMS also thinks departments would not be able to adopt regulations in a timely manner for seasonal conditions, such as a construction season or a timber season. She asks what would happen if a regulation is thrown out by a court. In an instance where fees are involved, would there then be no fees? Number 200 MS. WILLIAMS believes the power to challenge regulations will be immense, if amendment #1 is adopted. She thinks it will lead to more litigation. Environmental groups often use every tool in the book to stop something. Number 215 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Ms. Williams if the administration will be supporting the amendment if the issues she raised are addressed. Number 220 MS. WILLIAMS thinks there are some good things to the amendment, but there would have to be a fiscal note with it, and she does not think the legislature would add the funds. Number 232 SENATOR DONLEY asserts that the seasonal example given by Ms. Williams as a potential problem should not be a concern, because regulations could be adopted under the emergency regulations process. And Ms. Williams' concern with increased litigation could not even occur, so long as departments comply with the law. For court cases, the court may grant relief appropriate under the circumstances. So if a court had a problem with a regulation, they wouldn't necessarily have to strike down the whole regulation. Number 250 SENATOR LEMAN asks Senator Donley if, under Section 2, subsection (c), if it would be appropriate to add language to the end of the subsection stating, "or a portion of a regulation", or similar language to clarify that a whole regulation need not be thrown out. SENATOR DONLEY responds he would totally support such an amendment to amendment #1. He suggests, on page 2, line 9, that the amendment read, "...including the invalidation or partial invalidation of the regulation...." SENATOR LEMAN does not care how the amendment is made, just that the intent be clear. SENATOR DONLEY thinks the intent is: if there is an area of any regulation that is not impacted by the change with which the court is concerned, that the unaffected portion of the regulation still remain in effect. SENATOR LEMAN is not sure how the amendment to amendment #1 should be worded, so he moves the conceptual amendment to amendment #1. CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, states the conceptual amendment to amendment #1 has been adopted. CHAIRMAN SHARP notes he does not see language in amendment #1 stating there must be a hearing, just language specifying additional time for public comment. SENATOR DONLEY responds the language specifies, "...there is a notice and opportunity for public comment." He thinks this is the exact language used in legislation that was worked on three years ago. His understanding is that language would require a public hearing procedure. SENATOR LEMAN asks if that would be a 30 day requirement. SENATOR DONLEY thinks it would be a 30 day. SENATOR LEMAN asks if there would be any way to require a truncated second public comment period. Or would a new process have to be established? Number 290 SENATOR DONLEY replies a new process would have to be established. He thinks this language would just require one additional hearing. CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there are any more comments on amendment #1 to SB 110. SENATOR DONLEY asks the committee to consider, to bring things into perspective, that all the administration has to do to adopt regulations, which are just as powerful as law, is hold one hearing. Amendment #1 would require an additional hearing if proposed regulations are changed after the first hearing. Number 300 CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there is objection to adopting amendment #1 to SB 110. Hearing no objection, the chairman states amendment #1 has been adopted. Number 305 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to discharge SB 110 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 110 released from committee with individual recommendations.