TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 8, A

004

Chair Berger

Calls the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. and opens the public hearing on HB 2188.

HB 2188 - PUBLIC HEARING

009

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Explains what HB 2188 does.

019

Patrick Allen

Manager, Office of Regulatory Streamlining, Department of Consumer and Business Services. Submits a prepared overview of HB 2188 (EXHIBIT A). Provides a background on the Advisory Committee on Agency Rule Streamlining and the administrative rule process.

077

Allen

Begins a section by section review. Describes and states the intent of Section 1 and Section 2.

120

Allen

Describes and states the intent of Section 4. Illustrates the complications in writing planning codes. States neutrality on Section 6 and notes support on the changes to the administrative rule process.

168

Tom Gallagher

Introduces Stephanie Hallock and Louise Solliday noting that all three of them were on the workgroup. Refers to the workbook on administrative procedures. Refers to Factors Agencies Should Weigh When Evaluating Need For New/Expanded Regulation (see Exhibit D January 20, 2005).  Refers to the outline of ORS Chapter 183 (EXHIBIT B).

200

Gallagher

Refers to page two and explains what they were trying to accomplish.

252

Gallagher

Comments that the agency has to respond to interested parties.

311

Gallagher

Expresses support of HB 2188.

317

Stephanie Hallock

Director, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Testifies in support of HB 2188. Refers to the manual and states DEQ was one of the agencies that participated in the rule factors. Explains the rule process at DEQ and the use of advisory committees. States the focus on the fiscal impacts will be a good addition to the process.

372

Louise Solliday

Representing herself as a volunteer on the advisory committee. Comments on waivers and unintended consequences. States the waiver provision is narrowly crafted and can only be used in certain circumstances.

TAPE 9, A

006

Chair Berger

Asks if this bill were to pass would the Office of Regulatory Streamlining monitor these efforts.

012

Gallagher

Responds that the quality of program when staffed by only one person is dependent on the quality of that person. States there was a lot of discussion on training and sharing and this office will be a tool for managers.

049

Rep. Buckley

Inquires about the make-up of the committee and has any thought been given to reconvening the Advisory Committee after two or three years to see how the rules are working for the stakeholders.

048

Hallock

Refers to Section 1 and explains.

070

Gallagher

States that the more that is resolved with public input the fewer consequences down the road. The regulatory community has to take more responsibility to help make the rule work.

084

Rep. Buckley

Suggests a check-in with the advisory group.

089

Gallagher

Refers to Section 335(d) on outcomes. States they are trying to avoid putting things in statute that are necessary during exceptions but become the responsibility all the time.

112

Glen Stonebrink

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Expresses concern in regard to who is appointed to the advisory committees, where are community meetings held so that the people most directly affected are included, and how does this get undone noting that there is no sunset clause. 

168

Chair Berger

Closes the public hearing on HB 2188 and opens the public hearing on HB 2204.

HB 2204 - PUBLIC HEARING

180

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Explains what HB 2204 does.

190

Phil Schradle

Special Counsel to the Attorney General. States that HB 2004 and HB 2006 align closely with the Office of Regulatory Streamlining. States that the goal is to allow electronic notice of rule making proceedings. Submits prepared testimony in support of HB 2204 (EXHIBIT C).

211

Chair Berger

Asks who else was consulted.

228

Schradle

Responds there was not a tremendous outreach done in part because it does not compel anything. The idea is to be able to provide notice through an electronic mailing address if a person desires.

238

Chair Berger

Clarifies that this is not saying those without electronic addresses would be excluded from information.

225

Rep. Sumner

Asks are there any groups that would not be authorized to receive electronic mail.

244

Schradle

Responds he is unaware of any.

257

Rep. Sumner

Asks if a felon with ane-mail address is qualified to receive the notice.

258

Schradle

Responds affirmatively. Adds that currently that person would be qualified to receive notice by mail, upon request.

263

Chair Berger

Closes the public hearing on HB 2204 and opens the public hearing on HB 2206.

HB 2206 - PUBLIC HEARING

252

Caralyn Fischer

Committee Administrator. Explains what HB 2206. Adds that this is a move toward the 21st Century so software matches how law dictates changes are noted.

261

Phil Schradle

Special Counsel to the Attorney General. Explains that currently there are two notice requirements. HB 2206 would eliminate confusion and clarify what is new language and omitted language. Submits prepared testimony (EXHIBIT D).

294

Chair Berger

Asks why this has to be statutory and not accepted practice.

362

Schradle

Responds that under current statute Legislative Counsel can accept in any form it is comfortable with. Notice for the public in current statute requires the bracketing and bold face type.

319

Chair Berger

Closes the public hearing on HB 2206. Adjourns the meeting at 9:23 a.m.