Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/12/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB126 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 126 - DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERMITS 1:08:35 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 126, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and permits, commercial driver's licenses, and other motor vehicle laws; relating to the driver's license compact; and providing for an effective date." 1:08:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 126, Version 25-LS0453\L, Luckhaupt, 2/23/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version L was before the committee. 1:09:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that HB 126 is intended to reduce the number and severity of commercial-motor-vehicle-related fatalities and injuries, and incorporates into Alaska law key provisions of the federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which is aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of the commercial driver's license program. The bill will bring Alaska into compliance with the regulations set forth in the aforementioned federal law. Noncompliance would result in a loss of up to 5 percent of federal-aid highway funds in the first year and up to 10 percent in subsequent years; over a five-year period, this could total a loss of up to $80 million. He mentioned that the bill has two zero fiscal notes and no further committee referrals. 1:12:02 PM RANDALL RUARO, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johansen, sponsor, outlined the changes incorporated into Version L: Section 16 now also contains the language, of a person who holds or is required to have a commercial driver's license - this will clarify that the provision doesn't apply to anyone else; Sections 18 and 19 now reference proposed AS 28.33.140(a)(9) and (10) - which are being added via Section 16; and Section 28 now in part proposes to delete the words, "in writing" from AS 28.35.135(b). 1:14:24 PM DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that [the introduction of] HB 126 is in response to an audit performed on the DMV last summer which revealed that certain statutory changes needed to be made in order for the state to come into compliance with federal law pertaining specifically to commercial driver's licenses (CDLs); HB 126 encompasses those necessary changes. 1:15:34 PM KERRY HENNINGS, Driver Licensing Manager, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), concurred that most of the changes encompassed in HB 126 allow Alaska to comply with federal regulations; however, the DMV did request the inclusion of an exemption from the CDL requirement for those who operate snow removal equipment in small communities, such as those out in the Bush communities. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 8, lines 14-15, which says, "(1) is at least 19 years of age, to operate in intrastate commerce, or at least 21 years of age, to operate in interstate commerce;", and asked whether this change is necessary in order to comply with federal law. MR. RUARO said it is; federal law specifically states that a person must be 21 years of age. MR. BANNOCK concurred, adding that a CDL that is used for interstate commerce may only be granted to a person 21 years of age or older. MR. RUARO, in response to a question, said that the term "imminent hazard" as used in Section 23 is also used in 49 U.S.C. 31310(f), which says that the secretary of transportation shall disqualify an individual if the secretary determines that allowing the individual to continue to drive would create an imminent hazard as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5102. MS. HENNINGS explained that the federal government requires the inclusion of the term, "imminent hazard" in state law. She added, "If there was a major crash, there were fatalities involved, they could come in and take action and declare someone an imminent hazard and remove them from the road; it would be a very, very rare occurrence - I don't know if they've ever done this, but they want the authority to do it." 1:20:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that proposed AS 28.33.190(17) says: (17) "imminent hazard" means the existence of a condition that presents a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment may occur before the reasonably foreseeable completion date of a formal proceeding by the United States Department of Transportation begun to lessen the risk of that death, illness, injury or endangerment. MR. BANNOCK, in response to questions, said that a person can get a CDL if he/she has had a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction, or even two such convictions, though it might be harder to get a job. MR. RUARO, in response to questions regarding the term, "knowingly" as used in proposed AS 28.33.140(m), said he is not sure how that standard would be applied, but offered his belief that the employer would be charged if he/she knew that the employee wasn't permitted to drive and allowed it anyway. "Since the goal is to hold employers to a high standard, I would assume that the acts of a supervisor or a lower-level employee still lead to liability," he added. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that the employer would be subject to the civil penalties outlined in 49 U.S.C. 521(b). 1:23:10 PM MARGARET PATON-WALSH, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), offered her understanding that the federal government originally proposed a "knowingly or willfully" standard, but this was modified because "willfully" isn't used that much in Alaska law. She went on to say that the term "knowingly" comes from standard Alaska tort law, adding that in terms of vicarious liability, it still requires some kind of knowledge on the part of the employer, so the penalties wouldn't apply to an employer that was unaware that his/her driver was driving on an invalid CDL or in violation of an out of service order - the employer has to know that in order to attract the additional civil penalties. The bill is not changing standard vicarious liability tort law in the larger Alaskan context; the "knowingly" standard used in the bill only applies to the imposition of the aforementioned civil penalties. MS. HENNINGS offered her understanding that the civil penalty would consist of a fine of up to $25,000. MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question, said that a DUI conviction won't necessarily result in a person losing his/her privilege to own a CDL, it's simply that the CDL wouldn't be valid during the license suspension/revocation periods outlined in Section 13. In response to further questions, he confirmed that federal law requires the state to adopt regulations that conform to 49 U.S.C., and that this is the purpose of HB 126. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Section 1 in part says that an employee of the department assigned to perform functions under the specific chapters listed therein may access information, and asked whether this provision gives the department the authority to obtain private records from private employers without a court order. MS. HENNINGS explained that that access pertains to criminal justice records; the DMV had access to those records when it was part of the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and was granted access again by changes to the DUI statutes, but this authority wasn't clearly specified in those statutes, and so the federal auditors pointed out that the DMV was missing data and thus not in compliance [with federal law]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the language on page 1, line 9, doesn't specifically say "criminal justice information", and asked whether that term is defined. MR. RUARO said that the scope of the access is modified by the chapters referenced in Section 1, and pointed out that language on page 1, line 6, specifies that proposed AS 28.05.065 pertains to access to criminal justice information. MS. PATON-WALSH relayed that Section 30 of Version L adds to proposed AS 28.90.990(a) a definition of "criminal justice information" as having the same meaning given in AS 12.62.900. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that AS 12.62.900(12) says: (12) "criminal justice information" means any of the following, other than a court record, a record of traffic offenses maintained for the purpose of regulating drivers' licenses, or a record of a juvenile subject to the jurisdiction of a court under AS 47.12: (A) criminal history record information; (B) nonconviction information; (C) correctional treatment information; (D) information relating to a person to be located, whether or not that person is wanted in connection with the commission of a crime; REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that this means relevant information only. MS. PATON-WALSH concurred, and offered her belief that with regard to Section 1, subsections (a) and (b) need to be read together; for example, subsection (a) begins, "For purposes of carrying out the provisions of AS 28.05, AS 28.15, AS 28.33, and AS 28.35 ...", and so the access to information is only for the purpose of serving the provisions pertaining to the DMV's responsibility, and is not just access to any kind of information from any source. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to a question, indicated that he didn't object to having the language on page 1, line 9, specify "criminal justice information". 1:32:38 PM AVES THOMPSON, Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA), said that the ATA supports HB 126 and any efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and to create a safer work environment for ATA drivers. The ATA is pleased to see increased penalties for bad driving behavior, as this will help improve highway safety by removing those bad drivers from Alaska's highways. The ATA is also pleased that Alaska will be coming into compliance with federal law so as not to jeopardize federal highway funding, which he characterized as being very important to Alaska's transportation system. In response to a question, he offered comments regarding the Dalton Highway. 1:35:17 PM BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, spoke in favor of HB 126, adding that if the underlying federal law is good, the state shouldn't have to be threatened with a loss of federal funds in order to comply. She mentioned that her organization has two issues of concern. One pertains to the CDL being issued in the state where a driver is domiciled; currently, if a driver works in Alaska, he/she is required to get an Alaska driver's license, but that requirement has been removed by the bill and, instead, under federal law, a CDL will be issued in whatever the driver's state of residence is. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS said that the other issue of concern is the bill's lack of training requirements in order to get a CDL; under current law, those seeking to obtain a CDL are not required to receive any training. She suggested, therefore, that language in proposed AS 28.33.100(a)(2) be changed to say in part, "meets the experience qualifications, education and training established by the department". She concluded by noting that in many states, hairdressers, cosmetologists, manicurists, and barbers are all required by state law to have more training and education than CDL holders regardless that CDL holders are responsible for driving extremely large vehicles on roads of varying conditions. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS, in response to a question, offered her understanding that Alaska is one of the few states which require that training schools for CDL holders be certified. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether a CDL is required for employees of a small business, for example, a small business that makes deliveries. MR. BANNOCK explained that a CDL is not necessarily required for what he characterized as a regular automobile. Whether a CDL is required will be dependent upon the gross vehicle weight or the potential to carry a number of passengers. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how often a CDL must be renewed and whether companies that employee CDL holders are required to check their employees for possible violations and, if so, how often are they required to perform those checks. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS relayed that CDLs must be renewed every five years; that under the new federal regulations, the state would be required to run checks on CDL holders; and that a DUI conviction would affect the driver's regular driver's license and his/her CDL. She surmised that if a person were convicted of a DUI crime, his/her employer would know about it because the person would be off work for several days in order to serve the accompanying jail sentence. MR. BANNOCK confirmed that CDLs are issued in five-year blocks, and went on to mention that AS 28.33.110(b) says the driver must notify his/her employer before the end of the business day following the day the driver received notice of suspension, revocation, cancellation, loss, or disqualification of his/her operating privilege. He said he is aware of at least one firm that is attempting to contract, with large trucking companies, the monitoring of that program and thereby keep employers out of trouble. 1:48:43 PM CHAIR RAMRAS asked Mr. Bannock to comment on Ms. Huff Tuckness's suggested change. MR. BANNOCK said that the DMV is fully supportive of education efforts; however, the DMV has promoted HB 126 as being a conforming Act rather than as something that creates new law, and the DMV is not in a position to handle the education component of driver training. He said he concurs with some of Ms. Huff Tuckness's points, but asked that the issue of driver education be addressed outside the context of HB 126. In response to another question, he said that a lot of the funding that is contingent upon the CDL program isn't necessarily funding that is received or recorded by the DMV, and so the DMV doesn't have information regarding what might be driven by a matching-fund component, though perhaps either the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) or the DPS could provide that information. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested to Ms. Huff Tuckness that her organization provide members with information about training programs in other states, so that members can perhaps pursue that issue further at another time. MS. PATON-WALSH, in response to questions about proposed 28.33.140(m), said the proposed statute must be read to mean that the penalties would apply if the employer knew that the employee was driving in violation of the out-of-service order, not just that the employer knew the employee was driving. She also offered her belief that the standard of "knowingly" requires actual knowledge - again, the employer would have to be aware of the violation - but acknowledged that the federal government might have a different take on the standard of "knowingly". She offered to research that issue further. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that AS 11.81.900 defines "knowingly", and concurred that it requires actual knowledge. He suggested that a definition of "knowingly" be referenced in the bill. He then referred to the language on page 12, line 8, which says in part, "The department may adopt regulations", and pointed out that for at least one other statute, it has taken a long time and the threat of a lawsuit to get a department to adopt necessary regulations. He suggested, therefore, that the word "may" be changed to "shall". 1:57:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the federal law conforms to international standards. MR. BANNOCK said he is not aware of whether it does. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what would be the result of eliminating - from page 12, lines 5-8 - the language, "An employer who knowingly allows an employee to drive in violation of an out-of-service order or in violation of a railroad-highway grade crossing is subject to civil penalties as described in 49 U.S.C. 521(b) as established by the department in regulation." MR. BANNOCK said that if that language is removed, Alaska won't be in compliance with federal law; part of the CDL program is to hold employers responsible. The federal government is very clear on that point - the language the federal government is providing must not be changed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again suggested altering proposed AS 28.33.140(m) such that the term "knowingly" would be defined via a reference to AS 11.81.900. MR. BANNOCK posited that such a change would not create a problem, and indicated that the DMV would not object to it. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said it wouldn't alleviate his concern, however, that being that an employer will be the one who is held responsible when an employee refuses to follow the law. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that noncompliance puts at risk $80 million of highway funds over the next five years. MR. BANNOCK concurred. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for having the committee address the bill rather than the issue of tort reform. MS. PATON-WALSH explained that the aforementioned language on page 12, lines 5-8, does not create a new tort liability for employers; it merely makes employers subject to additional, specific civil penalties, which would be imposed by the department via regulation. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to questions, said he has no objections to adding a reference to the definition of "knowingly", or to changing "may" to "shall" on page 12, line 8. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would object to changing "may" to "shall" since the department is going to have to promulgate regulations that are substantially similar to federal regulations in order to come into compliance with federal law. 2:06:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to add to page 1, line 9, the words, "criminal justice" after the word, "access". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:06:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to add a sentence to page 12, line 10, "In this [subsection] (m) 'knowingly' is defined in AS 11.81.900". There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 2:07:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, to replace "may" with "shall" on page 12, line 8. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He opined that the department will promulgate the regulations anyway because it won't want to jeopardize federal funding. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock whether the department would be promulgating regulations if the language is left as is. MR. BANNOCK said the department would be, and mentioned that the DMV has no objection to either Amendment 3 or the current language. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 3. 2:09:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB 126, Version 25-LS0453\L, Luckhaupt, 2/23/07, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 126(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|