Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Aloha and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This is our first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and the 2025 legislative session. This is our January 2820259:30am agenda. I'm Senator Jarrett Kyohokalole, Chair of the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee in the Senate.

I represent district 24, which is Kaneohe and Kailua on the windward side. We have five Members on this Committee and since this is our first hearing, I'm going to pause whenever they make their way in and allow them to introduce themselves. So we'll start with our Vice Chair.

Good morning. What school are you from? zero, terrific. My name is Carol Fukunaga. I represent Urban Honolulu Senate District 11, which includes Manoa, Makiki, Punchbowl, Papukulea and University area. So we have a lot of concerns that Consumer Protection Committee deals with.

Thank you and for everyone on YouTube, we have Castle High School juniors who are here on a field trip in our hearing so they get special treatment. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end this hearing, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business on Friday, January 312025 at 9:35am and a public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website.

And again, because this is our first hearing of the year, I'm going to go through some of our protocols so that everyone understands how we like to run business in the CPN Committee in the Senate. So this year we are continuing our second year of a pilot program featuring enhanced hearing procedures that were introduced last year.

The CPN hearing notices will be publicly posted 96 hours before each scheduled hearing and written testimony submitted prior to 48 hours to the scheduled start time will be considered timely and all timely submitted testimony will be posted on the Legislature's website at the close of business the day before the public hearing.

For those testifying remotely, please note that your audio will be muted and your video will be disabled until it's your turn to testify. You will have 2 minutes to share your testimony.

If there are any technical glitches during your turn, we may move on to the next testifier to keep the flow of the hearing going, but we will try to get back to you and we appreciate your understanding and remind everyone that the Committee has received the written testimony that's been submitted for the record and that I have reviewed it all personally.

So thank you for submitting written testimony. We'll read the individuals who submitted written testimony. When we go through each measure, if the closed captioning on the feed doesn't describe your name accurately, we apologize. If you'd like to review written testimony, please visit the Legislature's website where you can find a link on the status page of each measure.

If you'd like to clarify or further explain your written remarks, we recommend doing so instead of reading verbatim. Your written testimony, your two minutes to testify are your own. But again, we have received the testimony and read it, so there is no need to read it verbatim.

Lastly, please remember that in accordance with the Senate Rules of Decorum which we follow in this Committee, personal attacks or accusations are not allowed and will be addressed at my discretion. So thank you and let's get started. The first measure is Senate Bill 102 relating to restaurants.

This measure prohibits third party restaurant reservation services from listing advertising, promoting or selling restaurant reservations without first obtaining a written agreement from the applicable restaurant authorizing the action. It also establishes penalties. First up, we have the Attorney General's Office online offering comments or in the room. Good morning.

Good morning. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Hong with comments on the bill. We've recommended a couple amendments to bolster the bill against potential potential legal challenges. Namely the First Amendment and the Contracts clause. We recommend in putting a purpose section identifying a legitimate government interest and a non impairment provision. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have the Hawaii Restaurant Association in support online. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Kehoe Olu Kaulole and Vice Chair Fukunaga. This is Victor Lim. I represent Hawaii Restaurant Association, which, which is made up of about 4,000 eating and drinking places here in Hawaii. We strongly Support this Bill102 and I just want to share that we really believe that if.

If an entity is going to serve as an agent of a restaurant, they definitely should have a agreement, a signed contract between the restaurant and the agent. Because whether it's a reservation entity, which is an app or email address, and the same thing applies also to the delivery service because if they.

Because when they represent the restaurant, the restaurant got to make sure that that agent represent their values of the restaurants and the information that they're sharing with other people are truly accurate. So with all of this reason, we strongly Support this Bill. 102. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That's all the registered testimony we've received on this measure. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this Bill? Okay, seeing none. Questions. I have a question for Mr. Lim. Can you describe any activity that's taken place in Hawaii that stimulated the introduction of this Bill.

Is this something that restaurants are dealing with right now?

We're fortunate that it is very minimal at best. As far as I know. I know about a year and a half, two years ago, there were some incidents where people were trying to do this kind of thing where the restaurants have no idea who is representing them and customers were not satisfied.

So the customer contacted the restaurants and the restaurants were just surprised and have no answer because that agent really was doing independently of the restaurant's ownership. So. But since then, in the past year, this issue has died down.

However, this has gone across the country and so many jurisdiction has passed similar regulations to take care of this problem.

Thank you. Okay, there are no more questions. Then we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you very much. SB137 relating to electric utilities.

This measure requires the Public Utilities Commission PUC to impose certain conditions of approval on any order approving in whole or in part an application for the proposed acquisition, merger or consolidation of an electric utility. Before we begin again, since this is the first hearing of the year, I'll ask Senator Richards to introduce himself.

Hello everyone. I'm Senator Tim Richards from the Big. Island District 4, which is kind of. A big district, stretches from North Hilo. Hamakua, North, South Kohala and down into North Kona. My background is a lot of agriculture. But agriculture ties into a lot of. Different things and the things we discussed.

On this Committee also have their agricultural ties. So thank you, Senator.

Thank you. First testifier we have from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Division of Consumer Advocacy, Michael Angelo with comments, Sir Mickey Knox. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Next up we have the Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Richardson, Chair of the PUC will stand on a written testimony providing clarity.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. Chair. We have Mariah Yoshizu from the Ulupono Initiative in support. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Michael Colon. I'm the Energy Director at Ulupono Initiative. I just wanted to briefly reiterate our strong support for this bill. We believe that it's important to reassert and reaffirm the state's commitment to all of the hard fought wins and policy protections that we have in place.

Over the last multiple decades, Hawaii has led the nation in many respects here. We were the first state to go 100% renewable. We also lead in how forward thinking the performance based rate making efforts are.

And you know, we wouldn't want a crisis of the crisis of the day or something that would spur a transition for our largest utility to impact all of those hard fought winds. And we have some prior experience as we all know next era merger that could potentially, you know, come again.

And so this, this measure is very important so that we kind of codify and reassert and send a message that these are priorities for the, for the state going forward. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Kiko Bukowski, IBW Local 1260 in support.

Good morning Members. Real quick stand on our written testimony and support and just want to add that we have offered up some proposed amendments to this measure. We hope that we can work with other advocates that are advocating for this particular Bill. We feel that protections in certain events are important.

However, we also feel that workforce protections against elimination and or reduction in workforce in this industry in this area is very critical to our electrical infrastructure and hope that you can consider our amendments. Thank you. Thank you.

Hang on just a second. That's all the submitted testimony we have. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay, we'll move into questions if I may. First, one of your proposed amendments is to add a severability clause. And I was wondering if you could.

Explain just in case any, any of our proposed amendments is considered not, not acceptable or questionable. It just preserves the remainder of the other provisions. Okay. In those cases.

Okay. Any other questions for ibw?

I guess one follow up question. You know, in light of a lot of the wildfires and other experiences across the country, have there been instances where the local workforce or the utilities workforce have either been reduced or jeopardized as a result of some of the follow up actions?

Well, California implemented similar protections when they responded to the wildfire that occurred in California and it impacted their electrical, the company that represents the electric electrical industry in California. So there is some precedent on labor protections specifically here in Hawaii.

There has been in cases where there has been either mergers, acquisitions or consolidations where collective bargaining agreements have either been no longer honored or workforce has been severely reduced. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Bukowski? Okay, thank you. I have a question for ulupono. Thank you. Mr. Colon, I'm not sure if you saw it, but the PUC proposed as an alternative to some of the more direct language in the Bill that instead.

zero, instead of what's being proposed to direct as a part of a merger or acquisition proceeding to direct the utility to demonstrate that they first solicited bids from A non investor owned utility and if unacceptable, the reasons why they were unacceptable in their application and if one was acceptable to present both offers, I guess in a parallel fashion rather than the pause that's proposed in the Bill.

Do you have a reaction to that proposal?

Probably have to think about it a little bit more. I mean, I don't think it's objectionable off the top of my head because as long as they can document that there was that effort, the question would be, you know, as we know, non, an alternative submittal would take time to coalesce.

And so, you know, you would want to make sure that there's enough time given for potential co op formation.

So if, you know, and not to, you know, cost aspersions at all, but if the utility were the one doing the solicitation, they may not necessarily provide the same amount of time for that co op formation to take place and therefore there might be a bridge in their ability to do so.

So that, that's what I'm thinking off the top of my head. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Ulupono? Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we move on to the next measure, we had another Member of the Committee arrive. So I'm going to ask Senator McKelvey to introduce himself.

Hello everybody. Senator McKelvey from Lahaina, Maui representing District 6. Thank you guys for being here. Should be quite an exciting year.

Okay. The next measure is Senate Bill 142 relating to insurance.

This measure requires insurers who choose to pay the proceeds of or a claim under an insurance policy by issuing a check to deliver the check by certified mail, restricted delivery, postage, prepaid return receipt requested to the last known address of the person designated in the policy as being entitled to the insured or the designated beneficiary.

First up we have Hawaii Insurance Division offering comments. Good morning.

Insurance Division will stand on our written testimony and be available for any comments.

Thank you for standing on your testimony, Mr. Bum. PUC offering comments. zero, I got that wrong. Hawaii Insurers Council in opposition. Good morning. Thank you very much. State Farm in opposition. Thank you very much. We also have written testimony from Christian Radic for NAMIC in opposition.

And late testimony from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association also in opposition. Do we have any late testimony? Other than that, no. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Senator McKelvey.

Kind of a little prescriptive, isn't it?

Because given how people accept payments over different things, but could this Cause a problem in, say, a place where somebody's home is burned down, they're being bounced around and there's no real established mail service yet to be delivering checks to the last physical address to which there that could cause all sorts of problems in people getting their money.

Right? Or am I just kind of not really mapping out the potential of this scenario?

From what I understand, Senator, when claims are being settled, that the claimant and the insurer are usually in contact with each other and so the claimant is expecting a check. So there's communication that's ongoing where the claimant may say, I don't have a place to receive mail, so can you send it here?

And then they can get it there. So there's constant communication.

If the check doesn't come and the claimant is contacting the company usually and saying, I didn't get the check, and then the carrier can see whether there was enough time to get the mail received or if the check check was cashed, or if it hasn't been and a reasonable amount of time has passed, then they'll stop payment and issue another check.

So there seems to be a process that is in place already that, that is, from what I understand, working pretty well where there's good communication because there's incentive on both sides to get the check received.

No, but people couldn't. Right now, absent this law, they can request the money in another form like wire ach or something like that. Or is it simply you guys just simply mail checks?

Zero, I think it depends on the carrier, but it's definitely a possibility.

Okay. All right, thanks, Chair for that.

Members, any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 157 relating to antitrust.

This measure prohibits the use of algorithmic price setting in Hawaii's rental market and requires the Department of the Attorney General to develop and undertake a public education program regarding the prohibition. Hawaii Realtors offering comments. I think all the testimony submitted is written.

We have Pat Garofalo for American Economic Liberties Project and support Maui Housing, Maui Housing Hui in support, Michael Older in support and the Maui Chamber of Commerce offering comments. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Seeing as there's no one to ask questions of. We'll move on to the next measure, SB158 relating to public banking.

This measure establishes a state owned Bank Implementation Board within the DCCA to determine the need for potential costs and benefits of and prerequisites to establishing a state owned bank. First up, we have the DCCA Division of Financial Institutions with comments.

Good morning, Senators. Thank you for allowing me to be here. We stand on our written testimony. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. We have written comments from. zero, we have written comments from the Department of Budget and Finance and the Legislative Reference Bureau. We also have opposition testimony from the Hawaii Bankers Association.

Not present.

They're in the room. Thank you, Jia. And thank you for standing on your testimony. Next we have the Hawaii Credit Union League offering comments. Thank you very much. We also have testimony in opposition from Andrew Crossland in support from Charles Ayes and late testimony from Linda Nakamura of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on.

zero, short recession.

Okay, Calling back to order this 9:30am agenda. Next measure is SB 318, this measure relating to genetic information. This measure requires the DCCA to adopt rules establishing privacy requirements for direct to consumer genetic testing in the state and requires the Department's rules to specify whether consumer's genetic information may be used for purposes of investigative genetic genealogy.

DCCA Office of Consumer Protection.

Good morning Officer. Consider.

Thank you very much. We also have testimony from Andrew Crosland in opposition. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members questions? Senator McKelvey.

I mean normally you guys are in favor more pro consumer protection things like this. I guess you could just cap your opposition. But also, what have other states done insofar as privacy in this area that.

You know of at the state level? We're not aware of anything at the federal level. What I did was I did a quick comparison between the HIPAA Breach Notification rule and the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule, which occupies this regulatory space.

It already has many of the coverages in place like the breach notification rule under hipaa and it requires notification to consumers as well as the FTC and the media in instances of breaches affecting more than 500 individuals. So those are some of the key protections that we already have under our breach notes.

State breach notification law and those FTC standards are already incorporated that we must give due deference to those FTC standards when we pursue our enforcement work.

So the state law encapsulates the FTC standards then is what you're saying, right?

That's right.

Well, it could given how everything's going pretty much haywire at the federal level and being reversed and double checked and backtracked on. So the, the fact that there is a state law that kind of gives some, I guess, alleviate Some concerns that if things change at the federal level, it wouldn't really leave us with.

Yeah, I appreciate that concern about the federal pendulum swinging, but this Bill actually would require rulemaking. It wouldn't set up, establish any privacy requirements under law, the rulemaking.

I mean, there's some concerns about the Bill being a little bit loose with the definitions so that the stakeholders wouldn't actually know what's going on if this law was passed in the form, you know, and lead to some costs, unanticipated costs down the road.

But your main position is this is already in the state law, so there's coverage, I guess. Right.

Main position is I would say federal law provides the protections and that federal law applies to covered entities doing business in this area.

So we're aware of some consumer protections already in place that provide a good baseline here in the absence of kind of knowing more about the genetic field and where these, where these issues are going in the future.

But if the pendulum swings the other way, though, there wouldn't be any protections. In the arrest that could happen.

We can't rule that out.

So maybe it'd be good to keep this Bill moving just because of that.

I think this particular Bill is not the correct approach through the rulemaking process. If we want to have sort of a more informed conversation, maybe in the interim about putting something into law, I think that would be a preferable approach.

Okay, thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Members, any other questions? Thank you very much. We'll move on. SB332 relating to foreclosures. This measure prohibits sellers of foreclosed homes from bundling properties at public sale and requires each foreclosed home to be sold separately.

Also specifies that the sale of a foreclosed property is not final until either 15 days after the public sale or 45 days if an eligible bidder submits a subsequent bid or written notice of intent to submit a subsequent bid. It looks like the only testimony we have on this measure is late.

We have, and it's, I believe, all written. zero, okay. Lahaina Strong, I believe you're in support. Good morning.

Good morning, everyone. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Katie Austin testifying in on behalf of Lahaina Strong. In full support. We have submitted written testimony. I just wanted to take a moment to really talk about what we are witnessing in Lahaino on the ground.

Our community is grappling with the fallout from the foreclosure moratorium ending, and everybody working on the ground is bracing for A foreclosure crisis.

As the economic impacts of the fire continue to unfold, the Lahaina Community Land Trust is working tirelessly to protect lands for affordable housing and ensure that they remain in the hands of local residents for generations. But beyond that, they are actively interven to help families at immediate risk of losing their properties. Today.

They are unable to testify because they are deeply engaged in a case that is involving just this, a family on the verge of foreclosure. And this case alone has required significant resources. And we really fear that it's just the first of hundreds. So we really need the protections of SB332.

Otherwise, we are at risk of seeing an overwhelming number of families lose their homes to disaster capitalism with investors swooping in to profit off of this tragedy. So the urgency of this issue, and I'm sure Senator McKelvey can attest to, is cannot be overstated. And we just really appreciate your support for this. So mahalo, everyone.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony and support from Riley Bond and from Justin Huey, also in writing and support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay, Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much.

The last measure on this agenda is SB525 relating to mandatory prior written notice and consent and contracts to provide cremation services.

This measure proposes that beginning October 1, mortuaries, cemeteries and pre need funeral authorities that contract to provide cremation services, provide written notice if precious metals are recovered after cremation and to obtain written consent before the sale or recycling of any recovered precious metals. First up, we have DCCA Regulated Industry Complaints Office with comments.

Good morning.

Thank you very much. DCCA Office of Consumer Protection with comments.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Senators of the Committee, my name is Emma Olson and I'm an Enforcement Attorney with OCP. OCP offers comments on this bill.

I'd just like to highlight in our testimony OCP appears to have authority to undertake enforcement action in the interest of protecting Hawaii consumers if authorities fail to make disclosures required in this bill. However, this bill does not confer express authority upon OCP to pursue an enforcement action.

Express authority could be conferred by amendment confirming that failing to provide written disclosures would be considered a violation of this section. Thank you.

Thank you very much. DCCA Professional Vocational Licensing Division with comments. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Chelsea Pukunaza. On behalf of the Cemetery and Funeral Trust Pre Need Funeral Trust Program. The DCCA will be standing on his. Written testimony offering Comments? Thank you.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. Hawaii Funeral and Cemetery Association in opposition online Good morning. Mr. Morford, you are on mute.

Okay. Good morning. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am representing the Wife Unwin Cemetery Association. We'll stand on our testimony in opposition and I'll just add some General comments to that.

Our industry was generally surprised when we saw the bill come out because we were unaware of any challenges that are occurring in the community right now or with consumer. So we were kind of at a loss on knowing where this is stemming from.

Currently we have best practices in place for the consumer is very aware of what occurs through the cremation process and what gets returned to them. What gets cremated biohazard materials that may or may not be returned to the family. So we're a little confused on where the intent of this Bill is started from.

And with that I'll pause my testimony and here to answer any questions if I can.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony submitted by Mitchell Dodo of Dodo Mortuary. In opposition, AARP Hawaii in support and the following individuals in support. All in support, James Sisler, Patrice Choi, Marilyn Seeley, Colin Hayashida and Lila Moore submitting late testimony. Also all in support, the Kokua Council, Doug Matsuoka and Gregory Masakian.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. I'd like to recognize Mr. Hayashida is in the room and stands on his supporting testimony. That's all the testimony we've received and Members questions.

Vice Chair, thank you. I'd like to ask the funeral Association, you know, if they can provide some specific documentation of their practices. This issue arose, you know, as kind of a constituent issue last year and we did reach out to all of the cemeteries and, you know, funeral parlors throughout Oahu.

We did contact Office of Consumer Protection and several of the Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs agencies in this whole process. And we're not really looking to create new regulatory requirements. It was simply a matter of for those who have pre need contracts with families.

All we're asking for is that there be an additional requirement of consent from the family if metal implants or other types of devices are to be removed. And you know, when in our discussions with the various DCCA agencies, it was kind of clear that there were many agencies with some jurisdiction, but not a whole lot.

So the goal was not to, you know, make this burdensome, but really to strengthen contract requirements so that families could be notified. So I guess that's the backdrop. Mr.

Morford, you know, I'm sorry if you know, the, the pre need organizations feel that this is going to be a huge burden because we're really looking just to strengthen, you know, the contract requirements.

May I comment? Sure. Thank you for. That's helpful, what you just mentioned. We did receive the letter that came out in July and I believe these.

I responded to that letter for the Association when that survey came out at the time on the pre need agreements, on when people pre need on cremation, when they have the death and they come in to make the arrangement themselves.

We don't know as an industry what that person has implanted to them or what they don't have implanted them. The only item that mortuary will generally remove is a pacemaker. That's all they will remove. And the family makes a decision on the pacemaker, on if they want that returned or if they want it disposed of.

The pacemaker itself, when we take it out, would be a biohazard item. If we give it back to the family, if they want it, we disinfect it. If not, we treat it like biohazard and dispose of it.

Any other implants are cremated with decedent at the time and the amount of metals that are left over through that process are really just chunks of metal. There is really no precious metals that are left in that process at all. So that's kind of where we're coming from.

But to your question, I'd be more than happy to provide you some procedural ways that we handle the families when they come in and. And also provide you some forms that we use at the time when we do the arrangement.

Okay, that would be very helpful because I think, you know, from the senior citizens and people that we have talked with, I think they're just looking for a basic notice and consent requirement. So the forms and you know, applicable types of contract documents would be very helpful. Thank you.

So just one real quick question. Wouldn't the. When we have the family sign the authorization for cremation, we have the authorized representative next to Ken sign off. Wouldn't that be the authorization to cremate? Because we have that form that they sign off on?

Well, if we can go through, you know, whatever documentation. Okay. Make that available to the Committee as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Members, any other questions? Okay. Sing None. Before we move into decision making, we had all the Members of the Committee, since this is the first hearing, introduce themselves. Senator. Oah. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Thanks. Sorry, I was don In Judiciary. Senator Oah Isoa.

Thank you very much. We'll recess for decision making.

Reconvening our Tuesday, January 2820259:30am CPN Agenda for Decision making on the following bills. Senate Bill 102 relating to restaurants is first.

Okay.

The recommendation is to adopt the amendments proposed in the written testimony from the Attorney General's Office, which add a preamble and add some language pertaining to the contracts clause and also to defect the effective date of the measure to July 12050 to continue the discussion. Members, any comments or concerns? Okay. Seeing none.

Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes.

I thank you. Vice Chair also votes Aye. Senator McKelvey? Yes. Senator Richards?

Aye.

Senator Awa. Aye. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure is Senate Bill 137 relating to electrical. Electric utilities. The recommendation is to defer decision making on this measure to Friday, January 312025 at 9:35am here in room 229.

The next measure, SB 142 relating to insurance recommendation is also to defer decision making on this measure to Friday, January 3120259:35am here in room 229. Next measure is SB 157 relating to antitrust. The recommendation on this measure is to defect the effective date of the measure to July 12050. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none.

Passing with amendments. Chair votes.

I thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Measures adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is SB 158 relating to public banking. zero, this is the State bank Bill. I'll note there was pretty overwhelming opposition to the measure in the testimony and not very much support. So the recommendation on this measure is to defer indefinitely. Any comments, Senator McKelvey? Appreciate it.

I guess I'll have to live this fight another day, but it's. I will leave the Committee with this question. Question why do banks who refuse to loan to people in redline oppose a public option? We have public options for everything else. Thank you, Chair.

So noted. Any other comments? Okay, we'll move to the next measure, SB318, relating to genetic information. The recommendation on this measure is to defer. There was no testimony in support. The next measure is SB332 relating to foreclosures. The recommendation on this measure is to defect the effective date of the measure to July 12050. Any discussion?

Okay, Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections hearing None. The measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. And the last measure on the agenda is SB 525, relating to mandatory prior written notice and consent and contracts to provide cremation services. We had pretty good discussion on this measure. So the recommendation is to defer decision making on the measure until Friday, January 31st, at 9:35am in room 229.

To Foster, I think, further discussion and if there are no objections, we will adjourn this hearing.