Dog fish,
You are right. I do not know why I put Blake. I talked to the house committee but got no where that I could tell, as I was a little late to the game. I then called Peason's office and thought I was getting through to them. Then, they passed it through with just some minor changes. I got to be more careful as I knew it wasn't Blake. Pearson seems to get the issue, but I think they are still quite mistaken on the impact of this one. What they did was change the time period to allow the Governor's office more control in scheduling the meeting. I think they thought by doing so the governor and committee could limit the number of meetings and address all the issues at once (to once a month). I have several problems with this. The first is that the tribes could protest a simple logging permit or other issue than agree to delay the consultation for as long as both parties wish. This would likely leave the permit in limbo until the groups get together. The other possible scenario is that they would still have to meet at least once a month and have to discuss as many issues as the various tribes wish to pursue. It is possible they could try to bring up every permit and just drag the consultation out for long as they want. Consultation over the issues at hand is not a bad thing per say, but the consultations should be limited for the most part to new policy, rather than allowing them for actions under already implemented policy and rules. Striking the word action would be the easiest way to take care of this.

The way I understand it, this is the way it would work in your field. It would be the difference from a rule that allows the feds to review all policy and rules regarding insufficient funds and one that simply said any action regarding insufficient funds. Under the latter, if they got ticked off at a bank, they could call for a review of every fee charged under the existing rules. Before anyone could be charged, they would have the right to review the charges one at a time. The burden changes quite a bit.