Alaska Legislature: House Community & Regional Affairs, 4/16/26, 8am

Okay, good morning. I call this meeting of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order. It is Thursday, April 16th, 2026, and the time is 8:03 AM. Members present are Representative Kai Holland, Representative Mike Prox, Representative G. Nelson, Representative Steve Sinclair, Representative Carolyn Hall, Co-Chair Mears, and myself, Co-Chair Rebecca Himschoot. We have a quorum to conduct business.

I'd like to remind members and staff to please silence your cell phones. And before we get started, I would also like to thank Sophia Tenney from House Records, who's here documenting today's meeting, and Chloe Miller from the Juneau LIO assisting us with the meeting recording. And on our agenda today, we have two items. We're going to start with SB 63, Local Boundary Commission, and then go to HB 162, digital product repair. The first item is SB 63, Local Boundary Commission.

It's the first hearing of the bill. I'd like to invite Senator Cronk and Paul Menke to please come forward and introduce the bill. And then correct me if I said your last name wrong. Apologies. Welcome.

Glad you're here. Thanks for joining us.

All right. Thank you, Chair Himschu and members of the committee. Senator Mike Cronk for District R. And go ahead. For the record, Paul Menke, staff to Senator Mike Cronk. All right, well, first of all, thank you for allowing us the time to present SB 63.

This is a reintroduction of a final product of the last legislature's House Bill 279, which passed the House unanimously, made it through the Senate committee process, but was calendared for a vote but just didn't have enough time to get across the finish line then. The idea for this legislation was brought to me by a couple of my constituents who were concerned about the lack of representation for the people of the unorganized borough the Local Boundary Commission. The nature of the commission is to consider any changes on the local government boundaries, and these issues are particularly relevant to people living in unorganized areas of the state. The unorganized area of Alaska is immense and sparsely populated, and there is a significant difference in perspective from people who live in the boroughs and from people who live in an unorganized area of the state. Um, with all due respect to most of the current members of the LBC, there may not be a very fair representation of how people in rural in the unorganized areas live right now.

And so we were just trying to present this bill that gives somebody on the commission a voice in that perspective in all these committee meetings. This would give them a voice at the table by adding a seat to the Local Boundary Commission and at least ensure one member be from an unorganized borough. With that, I can turn this over to my staff, Paul Menke, and go through a sectional. Sure. Staff Member Menke, if you would like to— Put your name on record and share the sectional.

Absolutely. For the record, Paul Mankey, staff to Senator Mike Cronk, uh, through the co-chair to the committee. So, uh, Section 1 of Senate Bill 63 changes the number of seats on the Local Boundary Commission from 5 seats to 6 seats, and then establishes that at least one commissioner be from the unorganized borough. It also changes the term lengths for the— of the commissioner seats from 5 years to 6 years, and this is so that One commissioner is up for appointment each year. It also establishes a requirement in statute that a commissioner appointed from a judicial district and the unorganized borough to be domiciled and registered to vote in the district from which they are appointed from.

And there is also a change that changes the mechanism for which the chair of the LBC is elected. So instead of the chair of the Local Boundary Commission being the member from the state at large, the chair will now be elected from amongst its membership. Section 2 amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska to state the members appointed to the Local Boundary Commission will serve 6-year terms, and this act will not affect the term of a member appointed prior to January 31st, 2027. And this is reinforced in Section 3, which is establishing an effective date of January 31st, 2027. Okay, thank you very much.

We can take committee questions, and I want the committee to know that we have Yep, we do have Director Sandra Muller from the Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development online for questions. Is there committee discussion or questions? Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And to the bill sponsor, and I think that your letter, your sponsor statement did a good job of kind of laying out some of the groundwork and background and obviously worked a lot on this last year.

But I was wondering if you could just kind of give me the context. You said a constituent brought it to you. Maybe the challenges that they face because of that. And I, you know, I, I agree. I like living in the middle of nowhere, as close as possible.

But I was wondering if you could just flesh that out a little bit more on why this would be helpful and needed. Um, through the chair, um, Representative Nelson, um, actually a lot of constituents brought this forward, and this is not only in my area, this goes across the state. I believe Representative Himschoot knows the same. You know, when people try to incorporate everybody in and without a voice, it becomes a real problem. And, um, So what we're just trying to do is to make sure that there is a voice on the Boundary Commission, that the unorganized areas are being heard.

And so really, that's where the gist of it came from, because we really want to make sure that before people are forced into something, that they have a voice and they can, you know, share that voice with the people out there. And my staff, Paul Menke, can add to that if he would like. For the record, Paul Menke, I think Senator Cronk sums up the purpose. I think just speaking with him introducing this legislation, it was just sort of introduced with the purpose of that government should be built from the people up and not imposed from the state down. And there's a perspective coming from unorganized areas of the state that is not always graspable for people who haven't lived there.

Follow-up? No, that's good. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Wow. Okay, seeing no additional questions, we're going to go ahead and open public testimony.

Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify? Okay. And I don't see anyone online wishing to testify, so we will close public testimony. And at this point, I think— well, I'll go ahead and mention if people want to send in written testimony, that can go to HCRA @akleg.gov. And at this time, I'm going to go ahead and set this bill aside and set an amendment deadline for 5:00 PM Tuesday, April 21st.

Okay. And we'll move on to our next bill. I think we'll take a brief at ease to rearrange. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we are, um, back on record, and the final item on our agenda today is HB 162, Digital Product Repair. This is the 5th hearing of the bill, and as a reminder, we adopted a committee substitute work draft version 34-LS0809-T and we set an amendment deadline for noon on Friday, April 17th, but we didn't have time for conversation. So we wanted to bring the bill back today and invite discussion here at the table. And I'd like to invite staff member Emma Solchinski to go ahead and give a brief recap of the bill, and then we will give you lots of questions. Alright.

Good morning to the co-chairs and to the committee. For the record, my name is Emma Solchinski. I'm legislative intern to Representative Dibert of House District 31.

If it pleases the committee, I can go through a summarized version of the sectional analysis of the new working version of the draft. I haven't looked at that. Is it extensive? I have a summarized version rather than going through the—. That might be— that might be helpful then.

Yeah, let's go ahead and do that. Okay. So the sectional analysis for the CS of HB 162 is as follows. Section 1 establishes the short title. Section 2 establishes 45.45.800 through 45.45.899.

These provisions require digital product manufacturers to provide to consumers and independent repair providers the same parts, tools, and documentation that they provide to authorized repair providers in order to make repairs and to reset security functions that may have been disabled during said repairs. However, they are not required to provide parts that are no longer available, or to disclose trade secrets or any other information they do not provide to authorized repair providers. Manufacturers of commercial and industrial equipment are allowed to require certification or verification of competency before providing access to critical and safety systems, to provide access to secure systems, and to provide parts as an assembly rather than individual components. The section additionally bans parts pairing, prevents manufacturers from being held liable for damages or injuries that occur during independent service provider or consumer repairs and clarifies that the bill regulates only that which is not preempted by federal law.

It defines authorized repair providers as having a contract or license to provide diagnosis, repair, or maintenance of the manufacturer's products, which includes manufacturers who do this themselves, and defines independent repair providers as providers who carry out those services without having those affiliations. Also in the section is a clause stating that power sports, par— and pardon— farm, forestry, construction, industrial, utility, mining, road building, material handling, and other similar equipment are exempt from the cost matching requirement, and manufacturers for these products are able to charge reasonable costs for parts. Motor vehicles, medical devices, life safety systems, security systems monitored by a person providing a security service, and physical access control equipment are fully exempt from the scope of the bill. Section 3 amends AS 45.50.471(b) by adding violations of HB 162 Digital Product Repair Statutes, AS 45.45.800 through 45.45.890, to the list of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared to be unlawful. Section 4 amends the Uncodified Law of the State of Alaska by adding a section describing the applicability of this act.

Section 5 amends the Uncodified Law of the State of Alaska by adding a section stating the act cannot change the terms of a license or contract that is in effect before the effective date of this act. And Section 6 provides the effective date of January 1, 2027. Okay. Thank you. Great summary.

I think we're ready for questions. Is there committee discussion?

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

A quick question on some of the sections that changed with the CS, but Ultimately, who is going to have enforcement authority in this bill? I couldn't find that. That will be under the Attorney General. Okay. Follow-up?

Follow-up? So then, it seemed that under some of the Consumer Protection Act provisions in statute, like, would this cause or create a private cause of action between an owner and one of the manufacturers of a digital product. Ms. Slocinski, through the chair to Representative Nelson, um, yes, this would allow private right of action. However, it is not the only state to do so.

Follow-up?

Yes, one more follow-up. So just to clarify, so it would— it does create a private cause of action, but ultimately it would be up to the AG to investigate and enforce, um, I guess if there was some conflict between an owner and a manufacturer. So the AG— so just maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly, but from what I'm understanding, so the AG can pursue action against a digital product manufacturer as defined, and then still, even if that was unsatisfactory to the owner, the owner could do a private cause of action as well. Staff Member Szlcinski. Through the Chair to Representative Nelson, yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Okay, other questions? Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Question for Ms. Szlcinski, and I apologize if I screwed up your name. How many states again have this on the books or this legislation is law?

Staff Member Sluchinski. Through the Chair to Representative St. Clair, I believe it is 12, though I think Kansas may have just become the 13th. Okay. And follow-up? Follow-up.

You and I have had a conversation. I don't like power sports in this piece of legislation. Do you know how many of those 12 or 13 states actually have exemptions for powersports equipment. Steph Marisulchinsky. Through the chair, to represent St. Clair, I can check that right now.

And while you're pulling that up, I'm— if it's handy, I'd be curious what the— which states again. I think you told us in the last meeting, but I'd like to hear it again if you have the list. Yes, to the chair, those states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Okay, thank you. And then back to the question about the powersports.

And Representative St. Clair, can you clarify for me powersports? Is that like ATVs and jet skis? And okay. Yes, ma'am. And just to make it a little bit easier on Ms. Zelchinsky, it's 8.

There are 18 states that have this type of legislation, 44% of states in the U.S., and only 8 of them— or 8 of them exempt powersports equipment based on the list that we received from the bill sponsor. Is that consistent, Staff Member Solchinski, with your findings? Through the chair to Representative St. Clair, I believe so. I'd have to take a second to look through this, but That sounds correct. Okay, do you want to continue?

Uh, no, no, Madam Chair, uh, Co-Chair. I just wanted to get on the record the number of states that had this legislation and the percentage that exempt power sports equipment. Okay, thank you. Is there further discussion of the CS?

With the amendment deadline looming tomorrow, this is our big chance. So, Representative Holland. Yeah, thank you. Good morning, Co-chair Himschoot. The one— there's a couple things that I'm still gnawing on here, but I wonder if we could talk for a moment about the terms and pricing of providing parts, tools, and documentation.

In page 3, there's a section that describes a couple different ways in which there are —terms and qualifications put on how much the manufacturer may charge for parts and tools and documentation. They provide some different language around most favorable terms or the reasonable or actual costs. And I compare that to Section C down at the bottom of page 3 that provides what appears to me to be kind of a simpler wraparound approach for providing parts on terms and at costs that are reasonable considering conditions agreed upon— quality, quantity, and timeliness of the parts— that to me makes a lot of sense. It's pretty clear and succinct down here, but that clarity found in Section C is limited to just a set of 3 enumerated product categories found on top of page 4. So I'm curious, um, what the differentiation is between those 3 enumerated product categories and the terms under which products and support are provided versus the what I might offer is a little more complicated set of criteria found up above for the other section.

So what's special about these three enumerated sections versus the more generalized, but I think perhaps a little more complicated pricing criteria that are found in the other section? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER TREGONING] Staff Member Solchinski. Through the chair to Representative Holland, the 3 types of equipment or equipment manufacturers outlined under subsection (c) utilize dealerships to interface with the public, so they don't stock those parts themselves. And the idea was to allow them to, instead of forcing dealerships to sell those products at cost and have to deal with the issue of stocking inventory and otherwise dealing with that, that they would be allowed to have a profit margin from that. Follow-up?

Follow-up? That's helpful, and I think it's a good reminder because I think you probably have mentioned that before, and I'm just having to get back up to speed with this. Would it be fair to suggest that Section C could be generalized to apply to any manufacturer that has a dealer distribution model for parts rather than just 3 particular product categories? I think there's probably more than these 3 if we were to scan products. Or is there something unique about these 3 that we wouldn't want to include other manufacturers, dealer distribution models, and other product categories?

Stephanie Mrzelczynski. Through the chair to Representative Holland, we tried to cover as broadly as we could those businesses that have the dealership business model. I think we would be open to adding to that. Fair enough. Thank you.

Okay. And, um, seeing no other— oh, sorry, Representative Nelson. Sorry, I have a question as well, but I'm waiting till the end. So, okay, okay. Um, I, I have a laundry list, and I guess we'll just go down.

I'll be as brief as possible and then just get your answer. But, you know, we've mentioned all these other states and that have, you know, some kind of right-to-repair law. And the reality is, is that they vary greatly in what their application is. And this would be the most sweeping definition of a digital product in the United States. And I think that, you know, we talked about that briefly before, but that is your intent, correct, with this, to have as broad of an application as possible?

Stephanie Mrzelczynski. Through the chair to Representative Nelson, yes, that is correct. Our intention was to capture as many products as possible in order to make them repairable for everyday Alaskans and to provide exemptions as it makes sense to. Okay, follow up. And I, I would echo some of the comments made by other committee members that I, I appreciate that.

And, um, and I want to fix my own stuff and really haven't found myself unable to do so. However, I think that that's something that this committee needs to consider is that, you know, in many of these states, it is specifically for either electronics. There are some that are motor vehicles, which will lead me to my next question, and like powered wheelchairs and things like that. They are not— definitely not as sweeping. In fact, they are considerably more focused and pointed, but my next follow-up question is why are Why are motor vehicles specifically exempted in so many places in this bill if we want it to be as broad of an application as possible?

And one quick follow-up is that as I've been talking to my constituents and they hear of, you know, my pretty obvious opposition to this bill, they're irritated at me for opposing their right to repair their products. And the main thing that they are irritated about not being able to repair is their motor vehicle. Like, they're not concerned. Or I mean, like, they have frustrations. I have frustrations with my dishwasher.

It's a Bosch and it really irritates me. However, when people think of right to repair, and the Alaskans that I've been talking to that think that I am missing something in this bill, their main frustration is motor vehicles and not being able to fix their motor vehicle. So why are motor vehicles exempted from this piece of legislation? Um, Staff Member Solchinski, and I just for the record want to mention Bosch is not supposed to break down. So yeah, exactly, it's not supposed to.

Yeah, that's like, that is a, that is a no-go. Uh, Staff Member Solchinski, motor vehicles. Through the chair to Representative Nelson, um, the one of the reasons that we have exempted motor vehicles from this bill and why so many other states have is because of of the strength of the motor vehicle lobbying industry. It's been really hard to oppose in a lot of places. But also, it is what I think the only industry that the Federal Trade Commission has said has a comprehensive memorandum of understanding that has actually expanded access to repairs nationally.

And they— there is a standard for that, which is why you're able to go to an independent mechanic and repair your car rather than having to take it to the dealership that you bought it. So there is more of a repair standard with motor vehicles, and it's a little difficult to oppose the lobbying industry. Can I just jump in for a second? I, I would have thought it had to do with life safety. If your dishwasher is broken and you have 9 kids, it's not exactly a life safety issue, but it could verge on it.

Whereas you're driving a car car and there's a real threat to yourself and others if, if you've done a repair. Does that play a role here? To the chair, I— on motor vehicle life safety, I don't know if that was considered primarily, but that could play a part. All right. Representative Nelson, to follow up on that specific point, Massachusetts does have a specific right to repair for motor vehicles, and this is not anecdotal but an actual data point.

That when they did pass that, I think it was '21 or '22, Subaru made the business decision that the vehicles that would be delivered or registered in the state of Massachusetts, basically their telematics are shut off. Starlink, you know, which like crash reporting. And so those things that are life safety issues, it was Subaru made the business decision. It's well documented. I was reading about this yesterday.

That they would prefer, or it made more sense to them, to ostensibly increase the danger of driving a Subaru in Massachusetts than it would be to provide that information. And I think with as broad of a sweeping application as this one would have, we might potentially face the same thing because we are a significantly smaller market than Massachusetts. And I know that we're not talking about motor vehicles, but other equipment as well. Um, may I just keep going, ma'am? Madam Co-Chair, follow up, follow up.

Um, on page 2, um, and once again, I know that we're coming up to the amendment deadline, and so I just— let's just keep rolling through these questions. Page 2, parts pairing prohibited, uh, Section 2, subsection B. So it says that once again, a digital manufacturer may not use parts if a functional one can be found, but it says that causes the product to display misleading alerts or warnings that the owner cannot immediately dismiss. That just seems like really amorphous language, and frankly, you know, these— my main concern is the equipment side of it. You know, these pieces of equipment now have millions of lines of code, and there's not a fairy that's like actually observing the inside of an engine, you know, and it's making sure that the fuel system and the exhaust system work appropriately.

I mean, it's measuring minute amounts of voltage, and so the computer doesn't know what the problem is. It just recognizes that, well, we're either getting too much juice or not enough juice, and it could be a problem with the engine. But if we're going to once again demand that a digital product manufacturer They cannot cause a product to display misleading alerts or warnings that you cannot immediately dismiss.

I don't see any definition in that. I, like, I don't know what a misleading alert would be. I don't know how an operator would know the difference between a misleading alert or one that actually is saying you're about to blow your motor up.

I, and that's, I just would like some clarification if you could flesh that out so I could understand a little better because the plain language to me seems It does not comport with my experience.

So, Representative Nelson, are you looking for a definition of misleading alerts? Well, I mean, it will demand— yeah, this section will demand that they cannot, if they use a product that is not approved by the manufacturer, like, what is a misleading alert? And it cannot do one that is not immediately dismissible. What is a misleading alert? Okay, Staff Member Solchinski.

Through the chair to Representative Nelson. So this section targets parts pairing, um, and to use an example, uh, if you have two identical iPhones and you swap the screens, those are both genuine Apple iPhone parts, but Apple uses parts pairing, so it pairs the serial code of the phone to the screen. So if you switch those screens they won't work because of parts pairing, and it will display alerts like, um, this is not a genuine product. It may disable certain functions like Face ID, and we're trying to avoid things like that, like alerts that you can't get rid of on your phone that say that it isn't genuine when it is. And this is like a big problem that we're trying to address with this section.

One follow-up comment, and then, I mean, I think that we'll have the opportunity to discuss this more, at least in, in amendments. But I think this gets exactly to the heart of my concern with this bill, is that I'm talking about blowing up a motor in a million-dollar bulldozer, and you're talking about my screen is parts paired. And I understand that.

I'm like, the thing that I think the application of this is like when I had to swap out, I had to swap out a board in a dryer and I have had to swap out electrical components in my dishwasher that never breaks down. Well said. Don't come after me. Yeah. Yeah.

But with the sweeping, the broadness of this bill, it would apply to everything from the iPhone to a multimillion-dollar, million-pound piece of equipment. Even just the, once again, like electronics. There's not a— when you're driving a 50,000, 60,000-pound piece of equipment, the steering wheel is not actually connected to the wheels anymore. It's all drive-by-wire. Those are all electronic components.

And it is a life safety issue.

And I have spoken to these companies and directly asked them, and so yes, that information they do give to their techs when something is wrong with steering. But this would now go to an owner, and I think that that goes into— I mean, it talks about training. You know, it says that they have to have— what is it? They have to be deemed competent. So I appreciate that you added that language.

However, When I ask manufacturers, like, this seems like a good compromise, like, the training and so, like, what would you do with it? And they're like, we're not— we don't run schools. We're not going to do it. So I think that that's a challenge that there is a disconnect between the examples that have been given, with all due respect between you and even the bill sponsor, and the applications that I see. We haven't even talked about aircraft.

I mean, you want to talk about— You know that motor vehicles are managed by the state or by the federal government. We haven't even gotten into aircraft with the FAA. And so this talks about parts. And it's not that— I mean, if you bring a part in, the airplane might still fly, but it's illegal to fly it if it's not a part that is actually certified by the FAA. And if the work is not done by a certifi— like, they go through the certifications.

We only have— we have— oh, I don't know. I think it's 1,800 FAA-certified mechanics. But this would apply to aircraft as well, marine vessels, gensets that, that, that our remote communities rely on. It would apply to all of that, not just dishwashers and iPhones. I will stop there for now, but that is in that— those are some of my main concerns, is that the application is not— this is the side effect or the ramifications of what this would actually do both to Alaskan businesses and where it would be applied by an overzealous Attorney General, we have not thought about or discussed far enough.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Member Solchynski, would you like to respond? Through the Chair to Representative Nelson, from my understanding, parts pairing or serializing components so that they only work with a specific product is primarily used in electronics. I think that perhaps we could do some work to clarify and expand on the definition of parts pairing so that it could be less broadly applicable to address that concern. And I'll just add, I— 10 years ago I worked at a place and they had a Keurig and I hated the disposable, so I bought a thing and I put it in the Keurig with my own coffee in it and it wouldn't work.

Did not work. And I was like, well, what's the deal? It said it was made for Keurig but not by Keurig. And it— I'm not even sure I'm saying that right. Bosch, I can say.

I'm not sure I say Keurig correct. Is it Keurig? Yes. Okay. Representative Holland, did you have a question?

Oh, just, uh, two quick comments. One is I appreciate the discussion we've been having. I, I do appreciate in, uh, in some discussion I've had with the bill sponsor that recognizing some of the federal requirements under aircraft and other regulated areas, and there is a section that they added in here that does provide a fairly broad sweeping statement, page 2, line 28, that carves out a recognition that in many cases there are federal regulations that provide protections over power systems, aircraft systems. This is a pretty broad statement that I appreciate they did put in there to provide some way to be able to not allow this to have potentially as broad an unintended consequence as you're mentioning. And I had to check just to make sure, but my Bosch dishwasher It did die 2 years ago.

I was able to pull it out, identify the pump and the part number. I went to Amazon, ordered a new heat pump is what it was called, installed it a couple days later, and was off and running and whatnot. So I love the appliance, but it did need some repair. I was able to repair it. So you might need to make a visit, a house call, so to speak.

So I really appreciate the conversation. Staff Member Solchinsky, can you talk to me about Farm Bureau and an MOU between the Farm Bureau and certain farm equipment manufacturers in the state of Alaska? We had a— I think we had a phone call from the Farm Bureau or an email or something. So is farm equipment exempted or not exempted in this bill? To the chair, Farm equipment is not fully exempted from the scope of the bill, but it does fall under the subsection in 45.45.840(c).

So it's power-driven farm equipment, so they are able to charge reasonable costs for the provision of parts. So they are under the bill but have that carve-out for their business model. And I did not see the communications from the agricultural industry, so I'm afraid I can't speak further to that, unfortunately. Okay, I'll try to get more information about that and follow up with you offline before our next conversation. So, okay, any other Questions or comments this morning?

Well— Okay, Representative Frost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, comments.

It's a very difficult problem to solve, and I think in some ways— well, I'm sure all of these are bills, everything that's going on across country is going to face some legal challenges, copyrights and Just how do you figure out these complicated pieces of equipment? So no matter what we do, it's probably going to be imperfect, but this will advance the conversation, I guess. I am frankly kind of disappointed. I think the most important parts— our most important products, motor Motor vehicles where you get out in trouble somewhere where you can't get the thing to work again or turn it off. And, and then there's annoying problems.

I have an older vehicle and the little tire pressure alarm keeps coming up and you— I can't figure out which little transmitter is not working and it's probably going to cost couple hundred bucks to fix this stupid little thing, so I just ignore it. And then you don't know what else. It's incredible. But then there's a difference between was that intentional to make this car obsolete? I don't know.

There's the other problem this, this week was an $11 part, a little plastic bushing that wears out, and they're not made by the manufacturer anymore, so you got to get aftermarket parts. They don't quite fit the same. It's horribly exasperating. And it, you know, frankly, at this point, the only solution to it is, as much as we can, to quit buying this stuff that obligates us to the Manufacturers, iPhones, my iPhone, I got an update and now it was, yeah, I guess so, I need an update. Now it changed so many things because the update was made for 4 or 5 versions, newer versions of the phone that I have, and it's horribly exasperating.

But I don't, I appreciate the effort.

The bill frankly doesn't go far enough. But I think we should move on, settle the lawsuits, and try and figure out really the difference is, is something made intentionally to become obsolete in an unreasonable period of time, whether it's programming, the little battery packs on a computer. If you, you can't get them apart, but when you do get them apart, it's just a bunch of battery cells that you could go down to wherever, buy a bunch of batteries, but you ruin it taking it apart. That seems to me to be almost malicious. I don't know.

So we have the perfect bill here because it doesn't go far enough and it goes too far, so we must have the perfect bill. Well, I don't—. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that we can Okay, I certainly couldn't perfect it. It's way beyond me to write a bill that fixes this in an organized way by statute, but we do have to get the conversation going somehow.

It's an important conversation. Attention to manufacturers, my recommendation: quit buying the junk. And here, here, your happy meter will stay higher instead of going down, at least. So Anyway, I do appreciate the effort that went into this bill. There was a lot of thought in it, and I do appreciate the discussion.

Thanks. Okay, and we had another question or comment from Co-Chair Mears. Yep. Through the Chair, Representative Prox, I have the same problem with the pressure on the car. I've got electrical tape prepared for you.

You take a little piece of electrical tape and you put it over the—. Tape on the— Yeah. And then it's nothing that worries you anymore. So, check engine light. Oh God.

Anyway, on and on it goes. Okay. Well, we've gone from getting in trouble with Bosch to just getting in trouble with everybody. Everybody. Just don't buy any of it.

Okay, great. Staff member Solchinski, do you have any closing comments today?

Yes, Chair, to the committee, thank you so much for once again hearing this bill. I really appreciate all the conversations that have gone into this and being able to work with committee members to strengthen the bill. I think what we've got is really good. We've worked with committee members to try and toughen it up and make it more broadly appealing, and we're really looking forward to hopefully moving it forward.

Thank you very much for those comments, and we're going to go ahead and set this bill aside with the amendment deadline tomorrow at noon. And I'm willing to work with members on that as well, of course. Thank you for your time this morning and for your work on this bill. And that is going to conclude our business for today. As a reminder, the amendment deadline for both House Bill 162 No, let me say that again.

The amendment deadline for House Bill 162 is tomorrow, April 17th, Friday at noon. And then the deadline for Senate Bill 63 is Tuesday, April 21st at 5. And I would also like to set an amendment deadline for House Bill 255, Senior Citizen Grants Dividend Raffle. Please draft amendments to work draft version G. And next week's schedule, we're kind of getting to that point in session where things are going to be a little fluid, so next week's schedule will be announced by the end of the day. Yeah, what day?

Great question. Um, we're setting an amendment deadline, but we didn't put the date on there. For, um, Senior Benefits, um, Tuesday the 21st at 5. Okay, apologies. All right, so that's going to match SB 63.

So that is Tuesday, April 21st at 5 PM. Okay, great. Sorry for the confusion. Seeing no further business before the committee, we are adjourned at 8:46.