STATE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REGULATIONS: A NEW PROGRAM (OHIO)

We enacted a bill in Ohio this year, Senate Bill 445, that has to do with the application of pesticides. It is a very wide bill as you would normally look at it with most of the meat going to come from the regulations that are presently being written into it. In other words, the framework was developed and accepted by the two houses in our state legislature and empowered the Director of Agriculture to establish the regulations or the so-called teeth to this bill. The governor signed the bill in June and it became effective in September. The committees as of this time are meeting to develop philosophies and regulations that will be promulgated and brought into hearings and sifted through, and eventually, with a target date of December of this year, (1970), brought to the Director of Agriculture's office for acceptance. There is a committee established for rodent and bird control which is very well represented by our industry here in Ohio. John Beck (Rose Exterminator Company) is the chairman of the committee, William B. Jackson (Bowling Green State University) and Robert Yaeger (Cincinnati) are also on the committee. The important feature of this new law, in terms of pest control operators, is the examinations that will be required. We operators and our service people will both be tested and licensed, if sufficient proficiency is demonstrated on the tests. For your information they use a little different terminology in the bill than we in the industry normally use. We think of an applicator in the industry as service people. In the bill an applicator is defined as an operator. Therefore in reading the law the word operator means the man who does the job, the service man. Just the reverse is true in the industry. We think of the operator as the man who owns or manages the company while these people are referred to in the bill as applicators. The Bill calls for the development of schools for the training of our people throughout the state. Those of us who are in bird control should begin to prepare ourselves to meet this request, to be available for the schooling, have our people available for the schooling, and give this program all the co-operation that we can.

A Law and Economics Analysis of Lobbying Regulation Towards an optimal structure through the Cost Indicator Index

This research primarily represents a contribution to the lobbying regulation research arena. It introduces an index which for the first time attempts to measure the direct compliance costs of lobbying regulation. The Cost Indicator Index (CII) offers a brand new platform for qualitative and quantitative assessment of adopted lobbying laws and proposals of those laws, both in the comparative and the sui generis dimension. The CII is not just the only new tool introduced in the last decade, but it is the only tool available for comparative assessments of the costs of lobbying regulations. Beside the qualitative contribution, the research introduces an additional theoretical framework for complementary qualitative analysis of the lobbying laws. The Ninefold theory allows a more structured assessment and classification of lobbying regulations, both by indication of benefits and costs. Lastly, this research introduces the Cost-Benefit Labels (CBL). These labels might improve an ex-ante lobbying regulation impact assessment procedure, primarily in the sui generis perspective. In its final part, the research focuses on four South East European countries (Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia), and for the first time brings them into the discussion and calculates their CPI and CII scores. The special focus of the application was on Serbia, whose proposal on the Law on Lobbying has been extensively analysed in qualitative and quantitative terms, taking into consideration specific political and economic circumstances of the country. Although the obtained results are of an indicative nature, the CII will probably find its place within the academic and policymaking arena, and will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of lobbying regulations worldwide.

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Legal Abortion: A Comparative Analysis of Health Regulations

This publication is the result of a comparative analysis of laws and health regulations governing access to legal abortion in 13 countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guyana, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, South Africa, and Spain. It seeks to promote access to safe and legal abortion services by developing health regulations and guidelines that are grounded in a human rights framework.

Public Lawyers and Marijuana Regulation

Although 23 states and the District of Columbia have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, marijuana remains a prohibited substance under federal law. Because the production, sale, possession and use of marijuana remain illegal, there is a risk of prosecution under federal laws. Furthermore, those who help marijuana users and providers put themselves at risk — federal law punishes not only those who violate drug laws but also those who assist or conspire with them to do so. In the case of lawyers representing marijuana users and businesspeople, this means not only the real (though remote) risk of criminal prosecution but also the more immediate risk of professional discipline. Elsewhere, we wrote about the difficult place in which lawyers find themselves when representing marijuana clients. We argued that while both the criminal law and the rules of professional conduct rightly require legal obedience from lawyers, other countervailing factors must be considered when evaluating lawyers’ representation of marijuana clients. In particular, we asserted that considerations of equity and access to justice weigh dispositively in favor of protecting lawyers who endeavor to help their clients comply with state marijuana laws, and we suggested means of interpreting relevant criminal law provisions and rules of professional conduct to achieve this result. This article builds on that analysis, taking on the particular issue of the public lawyer’s’ role in marijuana regulation. For government lawyers, the key issues in exercising discretion in the context of marijuana are not clients’ access to the law and equality but rather determining the clients’ wishes and serving them diligently and ethically. Lawyers representing state agencies, legislatures and the executive branch of government draft and interpret the rules and regulations regarding marijuana. Lawyers for federal, state and local governments then interpret those rules to determine the obligations and responsibilities of those they represent and to help their clients meet those obligations and carry out their required tasks. Both state and federal prosecutors are charged with determining what conduct remains illegal under the new rules and, perhaps more importantly, with exercising discretion regarding whom to prosecute and to what extent. Marijuana regulation is not a niche area of government regulation; it will influence the practice of virtually every public lawyer in the years to come. Public lawyers must understand the changes in marijuana law and the implications for government clients. Given the pervasiveness of the modern regulatory state, the situation is no easier — and, in many ways, it is more complicated — for public lawyers than it is for private ones. Public lawyers face myriad practice challenges with respect to marijuana law reform, and while we do not purport to identify and resolve all of the issues that are sure to arise in this short paper, we hope that the article helps alert public lawyers to some of the risks involved in participating in marijuana regulation so that they can think carefully about their obligations when these issues arise.

State laws on mopeds and motorized bicycles.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Laws, resolutions, and memorials of the State of Montana.

Includes extraordinary sessions.

State laws on probationary licensing and licensing of minors.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

The law concerning farms, farmers and farm laborers : together with the game laws of all the states /

"Requirements as to deeds throughout the United States"--P. [211]-226.

Laws, resolutions, and memorials of the State of Montana passed at the 2d-36th session

Includes extraordinary sessions

Workmen's compensation law, effective November 3, 1925, and other labor laws of the state of Arizona.

Mode of access: Internet.

The conservation laws in relation to minerals.

"This bulletin contains all laws, rules and regulations of the Department of Conservation in relation to minerals from the year 1930 to 1934 inclusive. Laws, rules and regulations prior to 1930 are contained in the edition of 1930."

Colorado workmen's compensation and industrial commission laws, passed by the twentieth general assembly of the state of Colorado, 1915 : as amended by the twenty-first general assembly, 1917.

Mode of access: Internet.

The inventor's and patentee's guide and pocket record : containing the United States patent laws, with notes of numerous decisions of the United States courts, also rules and directions for proceedings in the Patent office of the United States, with forms and instructions for patentees after they have secured their letters patent; together with a list of the counties of each state, for recording memoranda of sales, &c.; interest table; an abstract of the census of 1850; a list of the number of patents for inventions and designs, that have been granted by the United States Patent office; a dictionary of technical terms in mechanics, and other interesting and useful notes and rules /

"A complete list of states & counties ..." (p. [131]-152) is interleaved.

Oregon laws relating to agriculture from Oregon revised statutes with 1955 amendments; administered by the State Department of Agriculture and including some agricultural laws not administered by the department but related to or associated with department responsibilities.

Mode of access: Internet.