Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1997 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 83 - COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 83, "An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Representative Terry Martin, sponsor of HB 83, to present the bill. Number 0044 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, stated HB 83 was an easy bill. It was one that he decided to introduce because it came through a legitimate organization - the Office of the Ombudsman. The ombudsman recommended that the commercial vehicle inspection law be repealed for two major reasons: It appeared that there was a law that was excessive as far as protecting the public's interest; and that the Alaska Trucking Association exceeded a double inspection every year. In addition, if there was a useless law on the book, the legislature could be stung by it. He was pleased with the support of the bill by the industry and the State Troopers in the hearings in the House Transportation Standing Committee. Number 0166 CHAIR JAMES thanked Representative Martin for bringing forward this issue. She was aware of the inspection process that was put on the books and never funded. "It's a good idea. It's not working and hasn't been working; and, so let's move on and do something that works better." Number 0185 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Representative Martin if there was anybody against this thing? REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that he had not heard anyone, yet. Number 0219 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated he recalled working on a case where somebody had a recreational commercial vehicle and whether or not it fell within the reach of these sorts of statutes. He asked Representative Martin if he thought these types of vehicles should fall within the reach of these statutes? Number 0253 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied he did not want to pose as a lawyer or as an expert. There were specialist here to handle that question both from the trucking industry and the Department of Public Safety. Number 0279 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY commented that "commercial motor vehicle" was defined in Sec. 6. He asked Representative Martin who was going to do these vehicle inspections? Number 0319 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied the in-house trucking industry was doing a superb job right now, and Mr. Frank Dillon, Alaska Trucking Association, was here today to talk about that. The industry was worried about their own safety and liability. There was a good daily procedure where the truck driver must list anything that was found that could be a problem. At the end of the driver's duty, the list went to the mechanic to be fixed and checked off for the next day. "I think that's far superior than what the law has done because these people are interested, they do not want to get out there with vehicles that are going to fall apart." Number 0389 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative Martin who was going to do the inspections? What was the intent that qualified them under the law? Number 0407 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN deferred the question to the industry. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated that the State Troopers could show what they were doing and what the industry was doing in compliance with the federal law, plus their own in-house inspection guidelines. Number 0442 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN referred the committee members to Sec. 2 and said, he was curious which law or statute this bill covered and what were the qualifications. Number 0485 FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, explained, in response to Representative Vezey's question, the association had adopted the federal regulations through the administrative process - Section 396.25, "Qualification of inspectors." The section defined by training and experience those who would be qualified to do a federal motor safety inspection. He cited most qualified motor mechanics, mechanics who work on trucks, owner-operators, or any vendor who does truck repair work would be capable of doing such inspections. Number 0570 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained he had done a lot of work in the area of privatization of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The model was obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) where there was an unprecedented amount of inspection and safety programs. "There are no government employees really that do any of this. When we say and qualify under law why don't we say, `qualified under federal regulations.'" It was done in other cases. The state law moved with the changes in the federal law. "You have to comply with federal law and you have to comply with state law." So, why not bring the two together so that there was not any conflict? Number 0633 MR. DILLON replied he was told that this bill was drafted specifically to do that and that was why the term "under federal law" was used. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the bill said, "under law." MR. DILLON further stated the intent of the bill was to make it inclusive so that the federal rules would apply. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the only law that would apply would be the state regulations adopted, according to his understanding. The bill did not refer to federal regulations. That was done in other statutes. He cited Title 17, "controlled substances." "We simply adopt - automatically - we defer to federal regulation." He suggested saying "in according with federal regulations." Number 0696 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if he had looked at Sec. 4 - "Regulations."? REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied he was not talking about regulations, he was talking about the qualifications for inspectors in Sec. 2. The qualifications, which were also a regulation, could change. "I understand that we're talking about the regulations -- instructs us to adopt federal regulations. I'm curious why we just can't use them and not worry about updating our own administrative code." Number 0741 CHAIR JAMES replied she understood exactly what Representative Vezey was saying now. She cited Sec. 2, "Commercial vehicle inspectors," and read, "A person may not conduct commercial vehicle inspections unless qualified under law." Therefore, the only law that would be administrative law as opposed to statutory law. Was that your concern, Representative Vezey? Number 0771 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Correct." The law that would be applicable would either be a statute or a regulation that came down the line. CHAIR JAMES replied she understood. According to her attitude towards regulations, she preferred statutory law as opposed to regulatory law. Therefore, the language needed to be changed. She asked if the drafter of the bill was here today? Number 0794 JOHN MANLY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, explained the drafter was Mike Ford. The reason he drafted it that way was so that it applied to either the state or the federal law. Number 0820 MR. DILLON explained there was a bill passed in the mid-1980's, at the time of the demise of the Alaska Transportation Commission that handled the safety regulations and enforcement of the state. When the commission sunsetted it passed a law that would set up a system with two inspections a year through a vendor or a qualified inspection station. That never happened, however. In 1990, when he came to work in Alaska in the trucking industry, there was a glaring hole in the structure. There was no safety enforcement or inspection program. As a result, the trucking industry got together with the State Troops to find avenues to access federal money and to set up a program through the troopers. The trucking industry was successful in adopting, administratively, the Federal Motors Carrier Safety Regulations. They had been in effect since 1993 and the industry had operated under their prescription since that time. The drivers and the companies had no better concern for their safety compared to other industries. The drivers were concerned for their own personal safety, and the companies were concerned for their expenses. In other words, the self-inspection idea was not designed to let a company get by with running equipment that was not safe; that was not the purpose. What we had was a law that said we would have two inspections and that we would set up a system of vendors to do the inspections across the state. We felt that this would be redundant and would probably lessen the impact of the regulations that were in place ending up with less safe trucks than on the road now. The goal in this effort was to make this as strong as possible. We would prefer to have it in statute; that was our intent. We sought the administrative adoption mode out of desperation at the time. We would be happy to have these regulations in statute in total and a way to adopt the changes as they came up with the federal government. The regulations had been drafted very carefully to address specific problems in the area of safety. They covered everything from driver qualification to equipment safety. The industry had accepted the regulations both on the intra and inter-state basis. They provided a good framework for folks to operate safe companies. The oversight to this entire process was the State Troopers and the Commercial Vehicle Unit. The unit, right now, in cooperation and guidance with the feds audited companies. It audited both equipment on the road and the companies. The only problem with the system right now was that there was not enough inspectors to do an adequate job. He reiterated the intent was to simply put into effect, statutorily, what was in effect in reality. Number 1062 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated he had worked on a case where individuals were "recreationally" using commercial vehicles. He wondered if that would fall out of the scope defined in Sec. 6. Number 1099 MR. DILLON replied, as defined in the adopted regulations, "commercial vehicle" was defined as one which was used for the furtherance of a commercial enterprise. In other words, if one used it to make money or to further a business enterprise, it was a commercial vehicle, regardless of what it was called. Number 1160 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, so, there was a definition for commercial purposes that would make this universal. MR. DILLON replied, "That's correct." It was effective through regulation now. Number 1172 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Dillon if there was anything that precluded the trucking industry from doing its own inspections? He imagined it would be useful for insurance purposes. Number 1183 MR. DILLON replied the basic inspection was done by the company itself on both a daily basis and an annual basis. The option, right now, was that if a company did not have a qualified mechanic in its fleet, it could be taken to a vendor for the inspection. Most of the trucking companies had mechanics that worked full-time for them who were qualified and who were expected to keep the equipment safe and operable. "We don't see any problem with those folks doing the self-inspections and making sure that equipment is safe." Furthermore, one or two inspections a year did not make a safe truck. "If that's all you're doing and you're doing that just to meet the intent of the regulation, you're not doing what should be done as a responsible operator." That was why the industry advocated and enforced the daily inspection report forms, even for a person who owned his own truck. If there was a problem and it was not repaired then the onus of that violation was on the driver for taking it out and on the company for having sent it out. The intent behind all of the regulations was that they applied to both the driver and the company. The record reflected the arrival of Representative Mark Hodgins at 8:22 a.m. Number 1286 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Dillon if he had any ideas, in regards to his comments earlier, that there were not enough inspectors? Number 1294 MR. DILLON replied, currently, there were two troopers who worked in the Commercial Vehicle Unit. They had four inspectors working with them who were not commissioned by the Department of Public Safety, but who functioned as truck inspectors. The six of them were undermanned. They could not do the geographical work and the number of inspection that were necessary. The association was hoping that it could find ways to work with the legislature to increase the number of inspectors by two or three. It was also hoping that with the approval of Executive Order 98, the merging of the functions that covered trucking in the Department of Transportation, and the cross training of the weigh and inspection people, additional inspectors would be added without, fundamentally, having to spend any more money. Right now, however, there was not enough people to do the equipment inspections that were needed. There was not a major problem with accidents related to commercial vehicle equipment, however. The state ranked in the top four in terms of safety per mile and per ton for commercial equipment. Number 1386 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he thought that the inspectors were going to be private sector employees. Number 1393 MR. DILLON replied the inspection itself could be done by a person who met the qualifications in the regulations. There was also an oversight program with the State Troopers where they could stop equipment for cause and inspect it. There was also a national program called the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). The stickers that were seen in the windows of the trucks were inspections done by the troopers. That was an entirely different program from the daily and annual inspections, however. The enforcement part would be done by the Alaska State Troopers, and the inspection part would be done by an employee of a company or a private vendor. Number 1450 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that the bill called for an annual inspection. "That's right up there with being worthless, in my opinion. I can't even think of how many things that would break in one annual period." A vehicle that was safe today was not safe tomorrow. Number 1469 MR. DILLON replied, "I couldn't agree with you more." That was why the bill was perfunctory. On the other hand, he knew of equipment that was only getting inspected once a year and when it did get inspected major repairs were necessary. Nobody, in the state, who operated a truck with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds, should not be inspecting it daily and completing a daily inspection report. The annual inspection, he reiterated, was a way to insure that one time during the year the equipment was defect free. The trucking industry knew that one inspection per year was not enough, which was why it worked with the troopers. Number 1517 CHAIR JAMES said the language in the law that was being deleted was put in place about ten years ago which called for the privatization of authorized inspectors rather than the troopers. There were no funds to certify the inspectors so it was never implemented. Now, it was being taken away and the current method was being put into law. She stated more intensive language was needed under the "inspectors" in the bill to incorporate the federal law. She asked Mr. Dillon, if that was done, would it call for more than an annual inspection? Number 1581 MR. DILLON replied, "Certainly." The federal regulations applied, period, to anybody who handled or operated inter-state freight. The federal government superseded the state in that regard. That was one of the compelling reasons for going into the inspection program. The federal government's mandate to have a state program through the troopers was tied into about 10 percent or 20 percent of the state's highway funding. A substantial portion of the trooper's budget was paid for by the federal government through a program called the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Therefore, we were putting into the state statute what we were required to do federally. If we could find a way to craft the language so that we automatically updated the state's law as the federal law changed, it would be ideal. He was not sure if that could be done, however. CHAIR JAMES noted for the record that Representatives Ethan Berkowitz and Mark Hodgins were present. Number 1693 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Dillon if there was a back-log of the inspection requirements, and was it keeping trucks off of the road? Number 1700 MR. DILLON replied, "No." The current annual inspection was being done by companies and/or vendors now. The enforcement was being done by the troopers on a spot-check basis. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS noted that he had owned and operated trucks for the last 29 years. Anytime one of his trucks went out on the road they were always at risk to being inspected. Therefore, it behooved him as a business operator to make sure that they were in the best condition possible. Anytime there was a light out, for example, the operator was subject to being pulled over and detained. Generally, that would cost six to eight times more than the preventative maintenance. As Representative Vezey noted, there were times when mechanical things would happen so inspections were good. Number 1796 CHAIR JAMES stated it would be interesting to see how the operations would fit under the statutory authority. This was a good example of where the legislature had the responsibility: To make law, to ensure that the law worked, and to require as few regulations as possible so that the statute was the operating law. Number 1834 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he was comfortable with the bill, as drafted. Mr. Dillon noted that he was comfortable with the doubling in the size of the regulations. He also commented that the state needed more state employees which ran counter-intuitive to what the legislature heard. He noted for the record that there were some people who were familiar with the way government worked and the way the industry worked, and who were willing to be counter-intuitive. Number 1869 CHAIR JAMES replied she knew Representative Elton would get an opportunity to say, "more government was better." Number 1892 SERGEANT BRAD BROWN, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He recommended in Sec. 2, that the language read "the inspectors must be qualified pursuant to AS 28.32.080." It would cover the qualifications of the inspectors instead of using the language "qualified under law." Number 1925 CHAIR JAMES appreciated his suggestion. It was a simple solution. Did the committee members understand the suggestion? Number 1931 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Sergeant Brown what inspectors was he talking about - the government employees or the private sector mechanics? Number 1938 SERGEANT BROWN replied inspectors, including himself, were trained in accordance to North American standards which exceeded that of the industry in some respects. Thus, the suggestion addressed the qualifications of the civilian inspector. Number 1958 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that was not distinguished in the law. He asked Sergeant Brown, again, who were we talking about here? Number 1963 SERGEANT BROWN replied it primarily addressed that the inspectors meet the qualifications in accordance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Number 1975 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Sergeant Brown if the intent was to put requirements onto the regulatory agencies that inspected the vehicles or the paper work? Number 1986 SERGEANT BROWN replied he was not sure that he understood the question. Number 1995 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it primarily addressed the mechanics who worked for the private sector, but the law did not distinguish between them. Therefore, he wondered if the qualifications were for the regulatory agency employees; and, was it a physical or an administrative inspection? Number 2020 SERGEANT BROWN replied we were looking at the qualifications of the civilian inspectors and not so much the qualifications of the state inspectors. The state inspectors met their qualifications in accordance with the North American standards, an international inspection criteria. The CVSA basically said that when the decal was placed on a vehicle it entitled a truck to travel through Canada, the U.S. and into Mexico, and the operator or the company would be free of having to stop and submit to further inspections so long as the sticker was current. Therefore, the intent of the law was to set out qualifications for the civilian inspectors in accordance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that had been adopted. It further clarified that there would be one annual inspection compared to two annual inspections because it was not consistent with the motor carrier regulations. Number 2099 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that inter-state commerce was already preempted by federal law. The federal law also affected intra-state commerce. It appeared, therefore, that a statute was being written that only applied to intra-state commerce. Number 2126 SERGEANT BROWN stated that we were trying to ensure compatibility and that nobody was treated differently. The intent was to have everybody play by the same rules and to sing from the same sheet of music. Number 2165 CHAIR JAMES commented there were qualified commercial vehicle inspectors. Therefore, she wondered if the trooper, who also performed inspections, was an enforcement officer as opposed to an inspection officer. Number 2191 SERGEANT BROWN replied, "That's correct." CHAIR JAMES replied in-order-to enforce inspection, therefore, one had to be a qualified inspector. Number 2198 SERGEANT BROWN replied in one sense, "Yes." There were different levels of inspection, however, that could be performed by field personnel. A person would have to be qualified in accordance to the provisions listed in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations - Title 49. However, to stop a commercial vehicle and conduct an inspection did not require any special certification because any trooper or enforcement officer should be able to write up a head light discrepancy, for example. Therefore, we were looking at inspection qualifications that were in accordance to level one standards. Number 2242 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated his understanding was that most vehicle inspections took place at the weigh scales, at least that was where the number one opportunity was. Now, that was proposed to be taken over by the Department of Transportation. He wondered if it would make more sense to use the Department of Transportation's personnel to do an inspection at the scales. Number 2271 SERGEANT BROWN replied the weigh station was a good place to contact the vehicles. However, the majority of the serious violations were not detected at the weigh stations because there was a considerable amount of commercial traffic that did cross the scales. The purpose of the program was to be a random road side inspection. Thus, the troopers would go to construction sites, for example, to inspect vehicles. In addition, when the troopers did work the scales, they averaged one and one-half violations per commercial vehicle. Away from the weigh station, the violations jumped to four to six depending on the area. In the last three years, the Alaska State Troopers had conducted nearly 6,000 inspections statewide, of which, 26,000 violations had been written. "Therefore, we do not detect the more serious equipment at the weigh station. It's more of a random sampling and stopping." CHAIR JAMES asked Sergeant Brown if he had anything more to add to his testimony? Number 2332 SERGEANT BROWN referred the committee members to page 2, line 7, and suggested eliminating the "(2)" in the statute referenced. It was too restrictive for the application of commercial vehicles. The troopers wanted to adopt all of AS 28.05.011. "My recommendation is that the (2) be deleted and just leave the Alaska Statute as whole." Number 2379 CHAIR JAMES asked if the committee members were willing to accept the recommendations of Sergeant Brown? Was somebody willing to make a conceptual amendment? Number 2390 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked that the bill be held over until the next committee hearing. CHAIR JAMES replied we would hold the bill until Thursday, March 13, 1997 to come up with a committee substitute.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|