I'd like to call the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environment and Natural Resources to order. It's good to see everybody back and we're gonna get down to business and part of it is a fairly long bill that's over 62 pages. It's SB 734 but first I'd like to introduce our Sergeant at Arms today, in case you all get rowdy they'll throw you out, Donna Blake, King Kirby, Steve Mckay, and Jowles Jeffries, Thank you all for the job you all do. And our pages that are here today are Jordan Singin from Raleigh, sponsored by Senator Sanderson, Josh Johnson from Fuquay-Varina, raise your hand, Corbin Robinson from Spring Lake, sponsored by Senator Ravin, Jennifer Matthews from Winston Salem, sponsored by Senator Parmin[?], and Madison Gelani from Mint Hill, Sponsored by Senator Tart, and Madison Henderson from Dunn, sponsored by Senator Jackson. Thank you all for the job that you all do today and hopefully you'll have a good day today. Maybe you'll take some of our seats before too long. In fact, Chad Barefoot was a page for us just last week. I can say that now, I took that ribbing for a lot of years. But first we'll have up the PCS for SB 734. Senator Wade moves that for discussion all those in favor will say "I," all those opposed "no," Senator wade would you approach? And our Sergeant at Arms and Pages will be passing it out, and before we start let me say that if there's any proposed amendments let's get those to the Clerk and so we'll take a look at them. We'll have until 11:45 for all amendments to be brought up for us 'cause it's a long bill, it's a lot of information, we'll give everybody time, 11:45 if they do have an amendment to get it up to the Clerk and then we'll probably recess for five minutes just to make sure we get everything together and get what copies we need to out to everyone if it's any type of substantial amendment so that we can vote on it afterwards. We'll have until 11:45 to get the amendments forth and then we'll take a quick recess and then come back and vote on the amendments and then vote on legislation right after that. Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think you've all had a change to take a look at this bill and I would just like to do a couple remarks here. A lot of committees and commissions had input into this particular bill and there is a large volume here and I think we should start by just having staff go through the bill and then we can get the questions, if that's okay with the committee and you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, actually, and that's what we'll do. We'll have staff to go through the bill and then, if you would, members, if you would hold your questions until the end so we can get through the whole thing and we'll go through the questions and the amendments at the end. Jeff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. co-Chair, as Senator Wade mentioned a number of different provisions went into this proposed committee substitute so we're gonna have a number of different staff people briefing different portions of it so we'll be jumping from provision to provision and we'll try to also identify, for the ones that came out of different study commissions, which ones those are. My colleague Karen Cochrane-Brown's gonna begin with the administrative law provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Beginning with part one of the Bill, section 1.1 makes amendments to two provisions relating to administrative law. The first one deals with a section of the law that provides for rules that are adopted by certain environmental agencies that impose standards on natural resources that are more restrictive than Federal Law are prohibited under our current law unless those rules would apply to one of the five exceptions that are listed in the summary. This provision in this Bill would add a new section that would require, basically, that if the rule is allowed to be adopted under this provision, because it meets one of these exceptions, that that rule would then
It didn't have to be treated as though it had received ten letters, and would be subject to legislative review in the next legislative session. So, the effective date would be delayed for those kinds of rules. The second part of section 1.1 would amend the process for the periodic review of the existing roles. This was enacted last year, in the regulatory reform active 2013. This provision would amend the definition of necessary with substitute of public interest which is a category of rules that basically determines that if rules have that designation that they have to be re-adopted. This provision would require the agencies to re-adopt the existing rules, and it would impulse more restricted standards than is imposed by federal law on similar area. This provision is made retro active to the effective date of last year's bill which is August 13, 2013. So, all agencies that have already completed the review under the process would have to re-do the process under this new standard. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Section 1.2 of the bills, and you all see recommendation. Section 1.2 A would repeal a provision that was in the 2013 regulatory format which limited the enactment of local ordinances by cities and counties. It is essentially an early sunset of that provision. Sections 1.2 B and C would direct deal in the department of agriculture to report to the ERC on any local ordinances interfering with any areas subject to regulation by those agencies by November 1, 2014 and November 1, 2015. Section 1.2 D would prohibit cities and counties from regulating fertilizer. But, this section would not affect the inner's authority to enforce water quality standards. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Section 1.4 would repeal the lottery over site commission. This is not the commission that regulated lottery, but an over site commission. This provision was contained in SB 10 last year and is brought into this section and section 1.4 B makes a confirming change. Section 1.5 both A and B deal with representation of small business end of these, and certain administrative appeals. These two sections would amend the administrative procedure act and the tax law, to allow small businesses to be represented by one or more of its owners in an appeal before either in it a contested case in OAH, or before the property tax commission in tax cases. The provision defines a small business entity as a limited liability company or corporation that is owned directly either directly or indirectly by one or no more that two individuals. Section 1.6 exempts small business entities from the real estate license law and exempts their owners, officers, managers, and employees of a closely held business from the requirement of obtaining a Realtor's license, when they are in connection with the property they own or lease. Closely held business defined in this provisions is a limited liability company or corporation with no more that two owners. Section 1.7 makes a small amendment to a law that was enacted in 2011 that required quarterly reporting by state agencies on a number and use of mobile devices that they have. This would make the reporting requirement extended to an annual report rather than a quarterly report. The next eight provisions were recommendations of the joined legislative administrative procedure of over site committee beginning with section 1.8- this section amends a number of obsolete boards and commissions, this was recommended by APL last year, was also included in senate bill 10 and was not enacted, so was included in this provision as well. Section 1.9 would clarify the re-adoption of these existing rules process. Last year when that law was enacted, it didn't provide a specific process for the actual re-adoption of rules, so this would delegate the authority to set the schedule to the rules review commission. It would also provide that agencies can amend rules as part of their re-adoption process, but it includes a provision that rules that is re-adopted without any change or without substantive change, the agencies is not required to prepare a fiscal note for those rules. This is intended to streamline that process. Section 1. 10 is a somewhat technical amendment to basically amend the professional corporations act to authorize occupational licensing boards to adopt rules regarding (end)
[0:00:00.0] …The act of the rises those licensing to collect and to implement the statue but it doesn’t them specific rule making authority this just adds that real making authority. Section 1.11 amends the section that requires occupational licensing boards to report annually to the Secretary of the State, the Attorney General and the Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee this provision adds a couple of additional items of information that have to be reported and make some other technical changes. Section 1.12 authorizes the office of administrate hearings to allow documents and a contested case to be filed and served electronically. Section 1.13 amends the education law to specifically provide that the State Board of Education is subject to rule making under the APA and contains a provision that is similar to the APA language that provides that any policy that has not been adopted in accordance with the APA cannot be enforced. This provision also specifically authorizes that if an agency fails to act as required by law that someone agreed can comments a contestant case in that situation and have a ALJ determine whether or not they have in fact fail to comply with the law if so the ALJ can direct them to do so within a specified time. And finally that provision also clarifies that the right of judicial intervention applies when a final decision has been unreasonably delayed. Section 1.14 streamlines the rule making process by eliminating the requirement that agencies obtain a certification of adherence to rule making principles prior to submitting the propose tax of the rule for publication. The provision also amends the fiscal notes section of the APA to provide that the agency must obtain a certification from OSBM and connection with certain rules if they have a substantial economic impact. Section 1.15, clarifies the burden provision in contested cases, it clarifies that the petition has the burden in most cases but establishes that in two categories of cases specifically when a case involving the imposition of civil fines and penalties and when the case involves the suspension or discharge of a career state employees in those cases the burden shifts to the agency. And the provision also directs that Joint Legislative Administrative procedure oversight committee to study whether there are other categories of cases where the burden should be shifted. Those are all of the APO recommendations the next provision Section 1.16 clarifies the law with regard to legislative appointments and it makes it clear that we are the law governing legislative employments of worlds commissions provides that in case where the Speaker and the President pro tem are directed by law to make recommendations to the General Assembly on the recommendation or in-consultation with a third party that consultation is not binding but purely authorizes them to accept it. The third party must submit a recommendation at least 60 days before the expiration of the term or within 10 days of a vacancy. And if the third party fails to meet those timelines they are deemed to wave their opportunity to make a recommendation or exercise consultation. Similarly, in cases where the Speaker or the pro tem are directed to make recommendations based on nominees received from a third party, the third party is also subject to the same time rotations and will deemed to what been wave, to wave their opportunity to do so if they don’t need the timelines. I think now we go into part 2 the Permitting Reforms Section 2.1 amends the Administrative Procedure Act to create a new process for contested cases in which multiple license are required from an agency for a single activity. The Secretary or Chief Administrative Officer of the agency is authorized to issue a written determination that the agency decision is only reviewable on the date the last license for the activities issue denied or otherwise disposed off. The written determination made by these Secretaries or Chief Officer is not subject to a contested case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next series of provisions are more related to environmental and regulatory laws opposed to administrative law… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
The first section is section 2.2. This provision of the PCS would amend the process for filing a contested case on an air quality permit decision made by the Environmental Management Commission. It would provide that the filing of a contested case by a permit applicant or permittee would stay the EMC's decision, while the filing of a contested case by a third party, a party who is not the permit applicant or permittee, would not automatically stay the EMC's decision. It would also limit the ability of the third party, a person not the permit applicant or permittee, to file a contested case to circumstances where the EMC's decsion would result in an excedence of a national air quality standard. The next section, 2.3, would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to treat a dairy waste containment basin as closed and no longer part of an animal waste management system, if several circumstances were present. That would be if the owner of the basin demonstrates, to the department's satisfaction, that the basin has only been used for dairy waste, the basin was constructed prior to 1967, it's not been used to contain dairy waste since September 1, 2006, the only liquid currently in the basin is from rainwater or rainwater runoff, and the nitrogen levels in the basin do not exceed 40 parts per million. The next section, 2.4, would amend the process for filing contested cases regarding the Coastal Area Management Act or CAMA permits, decisions made by the Coastal Resources Commission. It would provide that the filing for a contested case by a permit applicant would suspend the permit, and prevent any action that would be unlawful in the absence of the permit, while the filing of a contested case by a person who is not the permit applicant would not automatically suspend the permit. Next section, 2.5, would authorize the Governer, during the state of an emergency, to issue an executive order to vaive the requirements for an environmental document or permit issued under several articles of the environmental statutes. This includes the Environmental Policy Act which is the SEPA article, State Environmental Policy Act article. Article 4 is the Sedimentation and Pollution Control article, and Article 7 is the CAMA article. There would be waivers for permits and documents under those artcles for the repair, protection, safety enhancement or replacement of a component of the state highway system that provides road access to an unincorporated municipality or unincorporated inhabited area bordering the ocean or a coastal sound where bridge or road conditions, as a result of the emergency, pose a substantial risk to public health, safety or welfare. The executive order must include the duration of the waiver and the specific activities to which the waiver applies, and also this provision provides that replacement could increase the size or capacity or change the location of the infrastructure being replaced. Section 2.6 would roll back a fee that was enacted last session for a permit for under-dock oyster culture. This type of permit authorizes a the holder of a permit to atach up to 90 square feet of oyster cultivation containers to the person's dock or pier. Under current law, the fee for that is a hundred dollars. This would repeal that fee for the permit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 2.7 would amend the law governing local government leases for renewable energy facilities. Currently any city can lease property for up to 10 years but certain cities are allowed to lease properties for up to 20 years for the purposes of renewable energy siting. This changes that law to make it 25 years and it applies to all cities throughout the state. Section 2.8 applies to closing-out sales or going-out-of-business sales. Under current law, the business has to obtain a license from the Clerk of the City or from an officer designated by the Board of County Commissioners. This goes through and amends the statute so that the license would be obtained from an officer designated by the governing board. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.1 is a recommendation of the General Assemblies Environmental Review Commission. It would make a couple of changes to the regulation for activities that impact isolated wetlands. First it would increase the amount of isolated wetlands that could be impacted without a permit from one-third of an acre to one acre for areas east of Interstate 95, and from a tenth of an acre to a third of an acre for areas west of Interstate 95. It would also decrease the amount of mitigiation that would be required for impacts to isolated wetlands, and finally it would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study the regulatory thresholds for mountain bogs, which is a particular kind of isolated wetland.
and report it's findings and recommendations to the Environmental Review Commission by November of this year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.2 would authorize the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission to grant a brewing, distillation, and fermenting course authorization to a college or a community college that offers the program as part of it's curriculum. This provision would be similar in scope to the authorization for college horticulture[?] courses that was enacted back in 2002. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.3 of the PCS is also a recommendation from the Environmental Review Commission. Last year's regulatory reform bill created a carbon monoxide detector requirement for hotels and motels in the state, this goes through and amends it, primarily to make some technical changes but also to create a system by which the local fire inspector must notify the local health department of any sort of violations and give the owner of the facility time to rectify the violation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.4 would provide that if the Environmental Management Commission receives a rule-making petition from a local government with jurisdiction over an area to be served by a proposed water intake that's impacted by a reclassification of those waters made by the MC after January 1st, 2012, the unit of local government and the unit of local government requests repeal of the re-classification, the EMC must grant the rule-making petition. While this is happening the re-classification and any related local ordinance changes will be stayed while the EMC promulgates rules that are retroactively effective to the date of the original re-classification. Basically undoing the reclassification. It also directs units of local government that filed the petition for rule-making to repeal local ordinance changes that they had made to implement the initial reclassification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.5 directs the Building Code Council to amend the state building code so that the accessibility requirements for swimming pools are no greater than those contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.6 of the PCS would establish a disclosure privilege for environmental audit reports that would generally prohibit the use of these reports as evidence in civil or administrative proceedings. The PCS defines environmental audit, in part, to mean a voluntary internal evaluation or review of one or more facilities or activities at these facilities that are regulated under environmental laws or management systems related to the facilities. If that report or audit is designed to identify and prevent noncompliance and to improve compliance with these laws the definition also specifically provides that an audit must be a discreet activity with a specified beginning and scheduled ending date reflecting the auditor's bona fide intended completion schedule. In addition to the disclosure privilege for the audit report and use of evidence in civil or administrative proceedings, the provision also prohibits persons that conducted or participated in the audit who significantly reviewed the audit from being compelled to testify in civil and administrative proceedings. In addition the provision would generally establish an immunity for owners and operators of facilities for imposition of fines and penalties for violation of environmental law that was discovered through the conduct of an environmental audit and then voluntarily disclosed to the enforcement agency. The provision specifically provides, however, that with regard to waiver of penalties and fines the waiver shall not be granted until the enforcement agency has certified that the violation was corrected within a reasonable time. So that means the Enforcement Agency retains it's discretion in that regard until the violation is resolved. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.7 of the PCS would exempt a childcare program operated by a non-public school before or after normal school hours from licensure and regulation by the Childcare Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.9 would direct the department in the Environment and Natural Resources to review it's air quality monitoring network and requests from EPA the authority to remove any monitors that are not required by Federal law. It also directs the department to discontinue all monitors that are not required by Federal law and for which EPA approval for the discontinuance is not required. This would not
… prevent the department from installing temporary monitors as part of an investigation of potential air quality violation or in response to an emergency that could cause imminent danger to human health and safety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.10 amends the Good Samaritan Law to clarify that a person who performs emergency services voluntarily, not expecting at that time to be paid for those services, is protected from liability under that law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.11 of the PCS would direct the Environmental Management Commission to amend its rules and the administrative code that pertain to open burning without an air quality permit, to provide that in addition to the open burning of leaves, tree branches and yard trimmings, a permit would not be required for the burning of logs and stumps when certain conditions are met. This Section would also amend the statutes to prohibit local air pollution control program authorities, the department and the EMC from regulating combustion heaters, appliances or fireplaces in private dwellings, except as authorized by federal law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.12 would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt rules to disallow establishment of any inlet hazard area where the location formerly contained an inlet that had been closed for at least 15 years, where the inlet has moved from the location due to shoreline migration, or where the location includes an inlet providing access to a state port via a channel maintained by the army core of engineers. This Section would not prevent the CRC from studying inlet hazard areas or designating new inlet hazard areas. Section 3.13 would authorize the WRC, Wildlife Resources Commission, to issue a Field Trial Dog Handler or Judge Permit, which will allow a dog handler or judge in a field trial to participate without having a hunting license. They cannot participate in hunting activities, but field trials using exclusively domestically-raised water fowl or game birds or legally-taken dead game would not be considered hunting activities. And this Section would become effective July 1st, 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.15 is a recommendation of the Legislative Research Commission Committee on the assessment of the Utility Regulatory Fee. The Utility Regulatory Fee is charged to all public utilities operating in the state. It’s a percentage of their revenues that are earned in their state. However, for some telecommunications companies, the General Assembly has enacted reforms to allow them to participate in a lesser form of regulation that is less work for the Utilities Commission. The PCS would amend the actual fees and the percentages that these are set at to allow the telecommunication companies who have opted for this lesser regulation to pay a lesser amount in regulatory fee, and to adjust the regulatory fee for all the other utilities to cover the operating expenses of the Utilities Commission and the public staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.16 would make an amendment to a legislative change made last session to one of the Jordan Lake rules. It would provide that the piping of a stream allowed under a permit issued by the army core of engineers would be an exempt use rather than an allowable use. The difference between an exempt use and an allowable use under the rules is that an exempt use does not require local government authorization while an allowable use does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 317 A, B and C of the PCS would repeal various air quality reporting requirement for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Environmental Management Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.18 would provide that when a venomous reptile is seized and FDA approved antivenom for that reptile is not readily available, the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences or the North Carolina Zoo must euthanize the reptile unless it is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 319 of the PCS would transfer the rule-making responsibility for onsite waste management systems from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.20, under that provision the General simply finds that the Governor’s Waste Board that was repealed in 1993, its rules are no longer enforceable or necessary, and it directs the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to repeal those rules and prohibits the enforcement of those rules by any political subdivision in the state. The Board was repealed in 1993. Its authority was given to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources and that authority largely involves local ordinances that might affect the signing of a low-level radioactive waste facility, and this authorizes the Board and now the Secretary to preempt those ordinances under certain circumstances. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.21 of the PCS would amend a provision that was enacted in 2013 to provide for reduced flow alternatives for waste water…
?? systems as required by rule, such that and in addition to, exempting establishments dwelling units would now be exempt from the flow rate for design and any design flow standard under certain conditions. This section would also direct the Commission for Public Health and the Department of Health and Human Services to establish flow-rates by rule that are based on scientific evidence specific to soil types that are found in this state. [Speaker Change] Section 3.22 would repeal two obsolete provisions found in the criminal law. The first one relates to using profane or indecent language on public highways, this provision is likely unconstitutional, and the second deals with refusing to relinquish a party telephone line in an emergency, we no longer have party lines. [Speaker Change] Section 3.23 of the PCS would increase certain penalties for the taking of protected plants. The PCS would increase the fine from a minimum of ten dollars to seventy-five dollars and the maximum fines from fifty dollars to a hundred-seventy-five dollars per offense. This section of the PCS would also require the Clerk of Court for the jurisdiction to report the conviction to the Plant Conservation Board provided that the plant taken is also listed under the Protected Plants List pursuant to the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. [Speaker Change] Section 3.24 would amend the Motor Vehicle Law to increase the penalty range for violating the handicapped parking privileges provisions. Under current law, the minimum penalty is a hundred dollars and the maximum penalty is two-hundred-and-fifty dollars. This provision would raise that range from a minimum of three-hundred dollars to a maximum of five-hundred dollars. The provision also removes the requirement that signs designating handicapped parking spaces must state the maximum penalty for parking in violation of the law. ?? adds a provision prohibiting signs from displaying incorrect maximum penalties [Speaker Change] Section 3.25 of the bill would repeal redundant and obsolete reports. This section was requested by the Utilities Commission. [Speaker Change] Section 3.26 of the PCS would repeal the requirement for the State Energy Office to conduct energy audits of each state agency and institution of higher learning as a part of the Department of Administration’s Facility Condition and Assessment program. This section would also change from annual to biannual the required updates to the management plans developed by state agencies and institutions of higher learning to manage energy, water and utility use. [Speaker Change] Section 3.27 would amend the State Coastal Stormwater Rules. Under those rules certain properties that were ?? by a certain date are grandfathered in and not subject to the rules. This would expand that to also include properties that are directly contiguous with those grandfathered properties. [Speaker Change] Section 3.28 would authorize the use of any pesticide registered by the pesticide board to control any species of mole other than the star-nosed mole. [Speaker Change] Section 3.29 would exempt any residential building subject to periodic inspections by the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency from a county or city’s authority to conduct periodic inspections as part of a targeted effort within a geographic area. If the residential building is in compliance with federal standards and provided the owner of the residential building supplies the compliance results letter from the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency to the local inspections department. [Speaker Change] Section 3.30 of the bill would direct the North Carolina Building Code Council to amend a certain provision in the fire code. Currently if more than one means of egress is required in a building you cannot have security grills on more than one half of those exits. This would direct the Building Code Council to amend that provision to say that you can have security grills on all exits providing that they are openable from the inside when the building is occupied and are maintained in an open position when the building is occupied by the general public. [Speaker Change] Section 3.31 of the PCS would rewrite the laws to require that any person engaged in the business of landscape contracting must obtain a license. Briefly, this section would more clearly define the term “landscape contractor” under the statutes. This section would establish requirements for landscape contractor ?? including application requirements, qualifications and examination in continuing education. Section would provide for exemptions for ?? establish the North Carolina Contractor Licensing Board, establish standards for issuing licenses to corporations, partnerships and persons doing business under a trade name. This section would establish fees and
articulate causes for disciplinary actions, civil penalties, and injunctions. This section would become effective August 1, 2015. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.32 would allow a person who discovers a shipwreck or salvages marine artifacts from state waters, and who donates the artifacts or contractual interest in the artifacts to the state, to retain the right to access the artifacts and display them on tour or conduct research on them if he or she meets all the following conditions: one, pays 40% of the net proceeds from display of the artifacts to the general funds, two, leaves at least one-third of the artifacts in state custody, three, provides to the state to-scale replicas of unique artifacts at no cost while the artifacts are on display elsewhere, four, returns the artifacts to the state at least every two years for a period of at least one year, and five, promotes the cultural and natural heritage of the state in any display of the artifacts. The right would be valid for 30 years after discovery of the artifacts and the state will return replicates to the person who donated the artifacts or the person there designated at the end of the 30 year period. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.33 would transfer all rule-making authority for matters related to solid and hazardous waste management from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission. Similarly, section 3.34 would transfer rule-making authority for matters under the North Carolina Drinking Water Act from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission and that includes drinking water rules to regulate public water systems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.35 would allow certified well contractors to run, install, maintain, and repair electric wiring, devices, appliances, and other equipment between a well pump and a pressure switch without having an electrical contractor's license. The section would also direct the Well Contractor Certification Commission to establish minimum education requirements for this type of work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 3.36a would provide that private well water programs administered by county health departments must use the standard form developed by Deener[?] unless unique conditions that could be a public health concern would be mitigated by the use of another form. This section would also require that local health department registries of private wells must be searchable by address served. Section 3.36b-d would provide that neither Deener[?] nor a local well program may require that well contractor identification plates include well construction permit numbers. A local well program could install a plate with this information on a well at it's own expense. And 3.36e would provide that a contractor does not have to be on site for an on-site pre-drill inspection if the well location's marked with a stake, or similar, and the contractor is available to answer questions by phone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part four, comprising studies, begins with section 4.1, The Honeybee Working Group. This section, or section 4.1 of the PCS would direct the Department of Ag and Consumer Services to create the Honeybee Improvement for Vital Ecology Working Group. This working group would be directed to proactively address the issue of colony collapse disorder and is directed to report its findings and recommendations to Environmental Review Commission before November 30th, 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 4.2 would direct the divisionary fisheries to designate an area of approximately 10,000 acres ?? is a recommendation to the Environmental Review Commission for the establishment of the Senator Jean Preston Marine Shellfish Sanctuary and to create a plan for managing that sanctuary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 4.3 is a recommendation of the Environmental Review Commission's Water and Sewer Working Group. It would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study the statute's and rules governing inter-basin transfers and to make recommendations as to whether they should be amended. Deener[?] is directed to report its findings to the Environmental Review Commission by October 1 of this year. Similarly, section 4.4 came out of the same working group and is a recommendation of the ERC. It directs the program evaluation oversight committee to direct the General Assembly's Program Evaluation Division to study the benefits that may result from the merger of public water systems and waste water and collection works. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that completes our overview. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you staff and, as you can see, it's a quite lengthy bill, very detailed, Senator Wade. Also I mentioned at the beginning of the committee, sorry but the, if you have any amendments please have those up on the clerk so we can get them ready and pass out, if you have an amendment send them forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further
Woman: Comments unless there's questions Mr. Chair: Questions from the committees? Senator Hartsell. Senator Hartsell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is probably for staff. I got here a little late, which isn't unusual. But my understanding is most of the, if not all, the APO oversight provisions are now in this bill, the recommendations are in this bill. The one I was particularly interested in, however, is the one that relates to "Shall Meaning Shall." Is that in this bill? If you could point that out to me, where it is. I just hadn't been able to find it. Woman: Mr. Chair, may I answer? Mr. Chair: Yes. Woman: Senator Hartsell, it is in the bill. It's in Section 1.13 of the bill that is the same recommendation that was approved by APO. Mr. Chair: Senator Ford. Senator Ford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got a couple questions here, one has to do with Section 1.5. Staff, I'm looking for a little clarity as related to a business-owner now would be required to have an attorney for an administrative hearing, under this provision this would be repealed but the business-owner would not have to have an attorney. What types of hearings are we talking about here and making sure that I'm correct that the business-owner would not be required to have an attorney. Woman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Ford, those two provisions relate to specific types of administrative hearings. The first one amends the Administrative Procedure Act, so it would only apply to contested cases and in those cases, you are correct that small businesses, and they are defined in this section, would not be required to have an attorney in those kinds of cases. The second provision applies specifically to property tax cases before the Property Tax Commission and it amends that law specifically to provide that small businesses do not have to have an attorney in that case as well. Senator Ford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next question. Senator Ford: A follow-up: it has to do with Section 1.6. I want to make sure that I'm also interpreting this correctly, looking for clarification from staff, that a real estate, licensed broker is not needed when a business owner wants to sell their property. Is that or is that not correct? Woman: Senator Ford, under current law there is an exemption for corporations. This provision would specifically apply that exemption to closely-held small businesses and that term is defined in this provision of the law, in this amendment. Senator Ford : The follow-up: so am I correct that a business owner would not need to have a licensed real estate broker to sell his or her property? This provision would add to the current exemption the owners of a closely-held corporation. That is correct. Mr. Chair: Senator Ford. Senator Ford: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question about Section 3.33 and 3.34 in terms of transferring the full ?? of authority of drinking water to the Environmental Management Commission away from the Public Health. I just wish for some further some clarification. Have there been some problems, have there been some issues here that necessitate a change along these lines? Again, just looking for some comments on this either from the staff or from someone. Woman: I really could not answer that. It really is a policy decision, so I'm afraid staff can't be much help on these particular provisions. Mr. Chair: Senator White. Take the mic. Senator White: My understanding was this would make it a much smoother, streamlined type for the consumer and also we had developed this new environmental department which should take over that. Most of the well-drillers that I've talked to said it was not very streamlined for them to go from different department. In fact, one basically said to me please put it back.
the way it was. So evidently at the business end they're having problems with which agency to go to and what department. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. ?? Well again, we've got section 3.33 that has to do with solid and hazardous waste management and then section 3.34 that relates to drinking water rules, so I can understand the well drillers with some input maybe on the drinking water but I'm not sure I'm hearing what I'm looking for in terms of some clarification and rationale for doing this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basically it's that DENR manages that department and that's basically where it needs to be, where DENR can manage that department. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, just discovered another question that I have for Senator Wade. Can you bring a little bit of clarity to me for section 3.2? What is the rationale thinking process around allowing community colleges and colleges in the state to sell alcohol. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford, ask Senator Bingham right there. He's going to become the new czar of all beer in the state. I'm sorry. Sentor Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that this is a growing industry in North Carolina, and that certainly our colleges are providing this education, and there is a limit to the amount, and the volume equals 64 cases of beer. That's 24 12-ounce bottles that they can sell, and they have to have, of course, a permit to do that, and they're limited to 6 events a year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. What happens to the proceeds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll defer to you if you know that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bingham's just here to drink, not to take up the money. The ?? staff's got to answer the question about the [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman and Senator Ford, the provision indicates that the net proceeds from the retail sale would be retained by the school and used to support the brewing, distillation and fermentation program. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And it is a fast growing industry. In fact, we just had a company that makes the refrigeration equipment move their operations, or half their operations, to Davie County because it's halfway between the two epicenters of the craft brew industry, which is Asheville and Raleigh and we're smack dab in the middle, plus smack dab in the middle on the east coast, so it's a fast growing industry and now we can prepare our students for jobs that pay very very well in this new industry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the sponsor, and ?? to staff. In terms of the transfer of the rule-making authority from public health to the environmental management commission under DENR, I'm concerned that when you look through the legislation, so much of the standards have to do with protecting the public health, so where is the public health expertise going to come into play in terms of these rules, transferring this rule-making authority. It's not "does it affect the environment?" Even though the environment is a factor. It's "does it affect the public health?" So how is that expertise going to be referenced in the process? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think DENR requested this or was aware of making this request. Certainly DENR is responsible for the environment, and certainly public health falls under the environment. I think it's just a change on the department, but the same standards would be kept up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. I'm just wondering from a policy perspective or structural perspective, if there's anything that needs to be done to make sure that the public health expertise is involved in the process, and some of the standards are about public health, and I was curious as to is this done in other places, or how do we get both sets of expertise to the table in such an important area. They could create a danger to public health quickly, that's all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could staff respond to that?
[0:00:00.0] The only think I would know Senator is that DAMC does have a license physician appointed as they handle matters that arguably in other areas related to public health safety welfare and the environment natural resources but there is a physician appointed to the EMC. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more statement Mr. Chair I just wanna just express a concern, well I think it’s great that we have a physician there is a whole body of expertise related to public health, protection of public health etcetera that we don’t loose that in this process somehow. So, hopefully there will be other address that would apply. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A comment is not mistaken this area of public health was formally in and was moved public health and it sort of embedded back & forth in the number of occasions overtime I’m not sure exactly what raise that but my question is it’s actually in the same way now if it’s a transitional issue, if we are stripping the commission for public health or we are making authority in certain areas and assigning that to the Environmental Management Commission and the bill is effective when it becomes law, my question is what is the effectiveness of existing rules relating to those issues, promulgated previously about the, I mean by the commission of public health until such time as rules are adopted by the Environmental Management Commission? Is that taking care of in some fashion here that’s my question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, Senator ___[??] the APA has a provision that deals with that situation, 150B 21.7 basically provides what the effect of the transfer of duties from one agency to the other is that it basically says that the rules in effect until the new agency chooses to amend them. So, there should of an administrative change of the existing rules to the new agency. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, in that case does the new agency administer the old rules in that until they adopt new that’s the one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ___[??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions and follow up the certain force always good when the small business not required to have an attorney and we are paying enough so it’s a good thing. I just wonder thank you for bringing that out, let me see Mr. Chairman excuse me, which page it is? I have noted it…And I guess this question is for staff so on the rail driller we are talking fine so they might help me with that I had a note that they can only run, well that it clarify that it can only run between the pump in the rail, which one is it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 31854. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you and I appreciate that, under the statement it says, including your license requirements etcetera and it says equipment by certified, equipment by a person certified as a rail contractor will run an electrical wires, could that language be more strict if it says, shall only could be equipment by a person certified and as a rail driller shall only run electrical wires from the rail pump to the pressure switch is that shall language anymore ___[??] and what’s already in the bill, the opinion of staff please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ___[??] I don’t believe that the Shell language would necessarily be any stricter, the assumption is an… [0:05:00.0] [End of file…]
[0:00:00.0] …From the electrical contactors license in a section that already exists. So, we are simply adding to a laundry list of assumptions from the electrical contractors and if you look at the language of the bill on page 57 you can see that assumption only applies to the installation, construction, maintenance or repair of the wiring and devices when running electrical wires from the well pump to the pressure switch. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for follow up sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On Section 3.31 rewrite landscape contractor license and statues. I’m not looking at the legislation just a summary but does that require a minimum revenue where someone has to have a landscape contractor license, what about the guys that ___[??] and back, Moses Church Graft once a week and gets paid for the retired gentlemen or someone like that, just to explain that applicability to me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, Senator Tucker that is addressed and the contract has to be at $30,000 before they have to have a license to go out and do it. So, it exempts the person that knows your yard everyday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought so I just wanna make sure but it was clear on that so there is no problem there. Thank you Miss. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further questions, I think we had an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Check later offers and amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman one more question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ___[??] just one more question about the community colleges Senator Ford ask about the process, you said still 64 cases is that a year, a month, a day or what just a clarification on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m pretty sure that means 64 cases and there are six events that they can have per year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 64 cases in total but they can have six events let me be more specific. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, follow back up on that thanks Senator Tucker. Maybe I misunderstood but the language makes reference to retail and whole sale, I mean I’m trying to figure out the qualities for retail and whole sale is that going to work within given those limitations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I’m gonna have to refer that to staff as I’m not actually breed any beer as far as quantity. So, can I look that up for you and get back with you Senator Ford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, just follow up, it seems a bit of contradiction with the limitations but then you are adding language as it relates to retail and whole sale and so if we are going to allow this let’s allow them to be successful. We will look into that and get back to everybody like I said it’s probably, if it’s never we will take care of an amendment. We will have a referral to finance. Senator ___[??] forward an amendment, those amendment on page 69, 12 to 15 by rewriting the lines to read. The amendments ___[??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. It raise the amount of impacts of isolated wetlands under 55A-NCIC02H.1305 B2___[??] shall be less than or equal to one acre of isolated wetlands for the entire project. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions or comments on the amendment, Senator Shepherd? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is just clear language all across the state, right. One acre and that clarifies here on one side an interstate, nine acre on the other side and he just clear language one acre. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In this way if you are one side at 95 and your neighbors on the other side at 95 you both are at one acre. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Sir any questions? Senator Tucker moves to adopt the amendment all those in favor will say, ‘I’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose ‘No’. [0:04:59.6] [End of file…]
Any further questions to come before the committee if not Senator Bingham ?? recognize for a motion. (Speaker changes) Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move for a favorable report on this bill. (Speaker changes) Senator Bingham motions to enforce the amendment into a new PCS and to give that new PCS, PCS, a favorable report and it has a serial referral to finance. All those in favor will say, "I." Opposed "no." I's have it. Thank you. We are adjourned.