Bill
H 426
H 426 package includes two unrelated bills: Idaho State Controller appropriation and Massachusetts cosmetics animal-testing ban—please confirm which to summarize.
Below is a concise, objective summary of the materials you supplied for “H 426.” The packet contains more than one distinct bill text and related fiscal and procedural materials. I summarize each identifiable measure and flag inconsistencies in the package.
Summary — package-level observations
- The materials include two separate bills both labeled “H 426” from different jurisdictions and on different subjects:
1. Idaho — House Bill No. 426 (2025): an appropriation/administration bill for the Office of the State Controller (references “Luma,” FTP increases, accounting corrections).
2. Massachusetts — House No. 426 (Docket/HD 1908 / 2025‑2026): a consumer protection bill restricting sale of animal‑tested cosmetics.
- The header you provided (“An act relating to transportation initiatives…”) does not match either bill text included. No transportation initiative text was provided. Please confirm which jurisdiction and which H 426 you want summarized if you intended a different bill.
1) Idaho — House Bill No. 426 (Office of the State Controller appropriation)
Purpose and intent
- To appropriate additional moneys to the Office of the State Controller for FY2026, consolidate certain ongoing Luma (Enterprise Business Operations) costs into the General Fund, increase authorized FTEs, provide for indirect cost recovery accounting, and correct a prior accounting error in the Division of Veterans Services.
Key provisions and changes
- FY2026 additional appropriation to State Controller: $15,243,000 in enhancements (ongoing), bringing the FY2026 total budget to $40,470,900.
- General Fund increase components: $10,051,300.
- Dedicated fund adjustments: net increases and reductions (e.g., reduction of $264,400 to Business Information Infrastructure Fund).
- Adds 10.00 full‑time equivalent positions for July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026.
- Specific FTP: 7.00 FTP for Luma personnel; 2.00 FTP for financial specialists; 1.00 FTP for communications manager.
- Transfers moneys assessed for State Controller services into the Indirect Cost Recovery Fund, with a required transfer to the General Fund on June 30, 2026.
- Accounting correction: authorizes State Controller adjustments to correct an erroneous billing of $1,074,400 to the Division of Veterans Services (FY2024 activity). Requires corrective entries and a report to JFAC and LSO by June 30, 2025.
- Contains emergency clause: Section 5 effective upon passage; other sections effective July 1, 2025.
Fiscal impact
- FY2026 total for State Controller: $40,470,900 (an increase of $15,938,200 or ~65% from FY2025 original).
- Increases General Fund disposition; $15,243,000 of enhancements are ongoing per the fiscal note.
Procedural / status (from materials)
- The included legislative action timeline shows passage and gubernatorial signature in March–April 2025 (various enrolled/passed entries and signature dates).
2) Massachusetts — House No. 426 / HD 1908 (Ban on sale of animal‑tested cosmetics)
Purpose and intent
- To prohibit manufacturers from importing, selling, or offering for sale in Massachusetts cosmetics that were tested on live non‑human vertebrates after the law’s effective date — protecting consumers from contributing to animal testing for cosmetics.
Key provisions
- Definitions: “cosmetic,” “animal testing,” “ingredient,” “manufacturer,” and “supplier” specified (aligns to federal references such as 21 CFR and 21 USC).
- Prohibition: It is unlawful for a manufacturer to sell in the Commonwealth a cosmetic where the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted (or contracted) by the manufacturer or any supplier after the law’s effective date.
- Exceptions:
- Tests required by federal/state regulatory agencies when no alternative exists and human‑health justification/protocol is documented.
- Foreign regulatory testing if such test evidence was not relied upon to substantiate safety for sales in MA.
- Products/ingredients governed by 21 U.S.C. subchapter V, or testing unrelated to cosmetics where no evidence from such testing was used to substantiate safety for cosmetics sold in MA (subject to documentation/history requirements).
- Cosmetics or ingredients tested on animals before the effective date are exempt (grandfather clause).
- Enforcement: Attorney General may review testing data where there is a reasonable likelihood of violation, protected by protective orders for trade secrets. Civil penalties: up to $5,000 for first violation and up to $1,000 per day for continuing violations. AG may seek injunctive relief.
- Effective date: six months after passage.
Affected parties
- Manufacturers and suppliers of cosmetics sold in Idaho (for the Idaho bill) — State Controller’s office and agencies using State Controller services.
- For Massachusetts bill: cosmetic manufacturers and suppliers selling in MA; retailers; consumers; AG’s office (enforcement).
Procedural / status (from materials)
- Massachusetts bill: filed Jan 15, 2025; referred to Consumer Protection & Professional Licensure; text shows an effective date provision (6 months post‑passage). A hearing date (Oct 20, 2025) is noted in the packet.
Notes and recommendation
- The packet contains multiple distinct measures labeled H 426. Clarify which jurisdiction and which measure you want a deeper dive on (the Idaho appropriation measure, the Massachusetts cosmetics ban, or a different H 426 dealing with transportation initiatives) so I can produce a focused, detailed analysis (e.g., budget line‑item impacts, stakeholders, enforcement mechanics, or drafting issues).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
