HB 216 was a lengthy bill , rather innocuously described as "...establishing standards ... for state agencies regarding analysis and assessment of health and environmental risks." The proposal was clearly intended, however, to impede the development regulations designed to protect human health and safety and the environment.

HB 216 required public agencies promulgating major rules intended to reduce risks to human health, safety ,or the environment to prepare a statement:

• describing and estimating (if feasible) the risk addressed by the regulation and the reduction reasonably expected;
• comparing the risk with at least three other risks potentially regulated by the state and at least three other risks with which the public is generally familiar;
• identifying the reasonable alternatives for achieving the objectives of the regulation, including performance-oriented, voluntary, or market-based approaches unless precluded by statute; and
• assessing the costs and benefits of the alternatives.

In addition, HB 216 required state agencies to make a determination that the proposed regulation: (1) is the most cost- effective of the reasonable alternatives; (2) maximizes flexibility for achieving the regulatory objectives; and (3) is not stricter than the federal law governing the same matter unless specific circumstances warrant more stringent regulation.

The bill also required the state agency to explain how it considered every reasonable regulatory alternative and cost/benefit information provided by any member of the public during the public comment period.

Finally, HB 216 required the governor to review all regulations in effect on July 1, 1997, and direct state agencies to initiate rulemaking to revise or repeal regulations that do not meet the three criteria outlined above.

The bill then went on to require the directors of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Department of Health (WDOH), Department of Employment (WDOE), and Game & Fish Department (WGFD) to set priorities and use their resources to reduce risks to human health, safety and the environment that are the most serious and can be addressed in a cost-effective manner.

HB 216 directed the governor to conduct a "comparative risk analysis" to compare and rank human health, safety and environmental risks potentially regulated by any state agency. The comparative risk analysis was to be conducted by a balanced group of individuals with relevant expertise and subject to independent peer review, and reported to the Legislature by July 1, 2000.

The remainder of the bill was devoted to directing WDEQ, WGFD, WDOH, WDOE, and the Department of Family Services on how to conduct risk assessments.

HB 216 was referred to the House Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee, where a long and spirited discussion took place.

Proponents of the bill argued that state agencies needed to do a better job of justifying regulations intended to protect health, safety and the environment, and that the requirements of the bill would help ensure cost-effective regulations based on scientific evidence.

Opponents characterized the bill as a costly bureaucratic nightmare intended to stymie regulations needed to protect human health, safety and the environment. They carried the day when they pointed out that the law could be flipped on its head and used to sue agencies for doing an inadequate job of protecting people and the environment from risks.

HB 216 was killed by the House Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee, with a 4-3 vote on a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Rep. Hinchey filed a similar bill for the 1998 session, but never brought it up for introduction (non-budget bills require a two-thirds vote for introduction in a budget session).

The vote listed below is the House Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee vote to indefinitely postpone HB 216; since the vote is on a motion to postpone, the vote is the opposite of the legislator’s views on the bill. (Note: This vote was recorded by witnesses at the committee meeting, and is not included in the official legislative digest.)

* The chair is not required to vote unless there is a tie, and in this case, he chose not to.