NREPA: STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLING S.B. 279: COMMITTEE SUMMARY
[Please see the PDF version of this analysis, if available, to view this image.]




Senate Bill 279 (as introduced 3-17-11)
Sponsor: Senator Phil Pavlov
Committee: Economic Development


Date Completed: 4-26-11

CONTENT The bill would amend Part 15 (Enforcement) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to do the following:

-- Require any State department that performed routine inspections under NREPA to use a "stratified random sampling process".
-- Exclude certain inspections from the random sampling requirement.
-- Require a State department to report annually to the Legislature regarding the inspections.

Specifically, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and any other State department that performed routine inspections under NREPA would have to use a stratified random sampling process to select people to inspect. The requirement would not apply to any of the following:

-- An inspection performed in response to a complaint from a third party.
-- An inspection performed because the department had evidence that a violation had occurred.
-- A follow-up inspection to determine whether violations identified in a previous inspection had been corrected.


The department would have to submit an annual report to the Legislature on all of the following:

-- The methods used to comply with the bill.
-- The number of routine inspections and the number of inspections for which stratified random sampling would not be required (as described above) that the department performed during the prior year.
-- The location of the inspections.

"Stratified random sampling process" would mean a process that meets all of the following requirements:

-- The population is divided into distinct nonoverlapping subgroups based on important characteristics.
-- A sample is then selected from each subgroup through a process in which each person in that subgroup has an equal chance of being selected.
-- The size of the sample from each subgroup is proportional to the size of the subgroup.


Proposed MCL 324.1505 Legislative Analyst: Patrick Affholter
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have no fiscal impact on State or local government.

Fiscal Analyst: Josh Sefton

Analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent. sb279/1112