Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/03/1997 01:00 PM House TRA
| 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 Number 1627 CHAIR MASEK announced a public hearing on HB 83, "An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and providing for an effective date." Number 1633 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN stated that HB 83 was written as a result of Mr. Stuart Hall's, Ombudsman, Legislative Agencies and Offices, annual reports, which proved that the commercial vehicle truck inspection laws require upgrading. Representative Martin believes there is a major problem if the state is not doing the inspections that are called for by the statutes, and felt this could result in a higher level of liability. He referred to the suggestion that the federal laws on commercial vehicle inspections would adequatly serve the purpose of public safety and stated that the committee may want to follow the federal law. Number 1778 FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that the ATA is a 38-year old trade association that represents the interests of the commercial vehicle users throughout Alaska. The ATA has 300 member companies and represents a substantial portion of commercial truck operators in Alaska. Number 1788 MR. DILLON stated that in 1986, as the Alaska Transportation Commission was being phased out, the legislature in order to protect the interest of public highway users passed HB 83, Title 28, Chapter 32, regarding commercial vehicle inspections and setting up a system where inspections would occur twice a year. This was passed 1986 but was never implemented. In 1990, Mr. Dillon worked for the ATA and realized that there was a lot of equipment that could only be identified by viewing the license plates which in most cases were obscured. He stated that in other jurisdictions the vehicle identification is required to be marked on the vehicles doors and was surprised that there is no requirement to do so in Alaska. Number 1835 MR. DILLON stated the that the Motor Carriers Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) sets up federal money to be available to the state as a supplement to their Commercial Vehicle Program. The current program mirrors the regulations of the MCSAP. Mr. Dillon stated that, all trucks in the state of Alaska, operating under interstate commerce, have always been under the federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations (MCSR). Interstate commerce is defined by the where the freight is going, not where the trucks are traveling to and from. Mr. Dillon stated that in 1993 the DPS administratively adopted the MCSR which have been enforced since that time. The ATA has educated the commercial drivers of the regulations and requirements under the MCSR. The ATA has also enacted a drug testing and alcohol testing law which is both a random and pre- employment test for commercial vehicle users. Number 1980 MR. DILLON stated that the MCSR requires several different inspections take place to ensure the equipment on Alaskan highways is safe. The annual defect free requirement is an inspection performed by a mechanic on every piece of commercial truck equipment used in Alaska. A daily requirement for mid-size equipment, 10,000 pounds and over, mandates at shift end, the driver must report the condition of his/her equipment, repairs have to be performed, if needed, before the equipment can be used again. In addition, there is a random inspection done by the Commercial Vehicle Unit on the highway and at the trucking facilities. The federal MCSR is contained in a 535 page booklet that truck drivers are required to be familiar with as well as implement. Mr. Dillon stated that the MCSR ensures both safe equipment and qualified drivers are operating on Alaska's highways. Mr. Dillon added that the MCSR meets the federal requirements in order to receive the federal highway funds, of which DOT&PF receives over 200 million. Number 2079 MR. DILLON asked that a committee substitute be introduced that addresses the federal regulations that have administratively been adopted. He stated that he would like to see Alaska's inspection program comply with the federal regulation rather that a program that has never been instituted, will cost the industry between four and six million dollars to private garage owners and will not enhance safety on Alaska's highways. He stated he would like to see the federal guidelines be established in the statutes or be recognized administratively. Number 2162 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Dillon who would carry out the inspections to insure compliance with the federal guidelines under this proposal that Mr. Dillon would like to see incorporated into a committee substitute. He further asked if Mr. Dillon stated this would save the industry four to six million dollars by shifting inspections from having to be performed by private garages. Number 2193 MR. DILLON replied that right now there is not a mandate that commercial vehicles be taken to a commercial inspection station. Many of the commercial vehicle operators do take their equipment to vendors because they recognize the need for inspection and the assurance that they are not missing any safety related items. Many companies and owner operators are qualified to perform the safety inspections themselves. The ATA would incur the four to six million dollar cost under the proposed inspection system and in addition, the system would not add to the net safety of the equipment and drivers on the road. Mr. Dillon stated that under the federal inspection standards Alaska is the safest state both by milage and by tonnage to run equipment in. Number 2258 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Dillon if the federal guidelines are implemented through a committee substitute what would the enforcement method be; would the industry enforce itself. Number 2272 MR. DILLON replied that the Commercial Vehicle Unit consists of a sergeant, a trooper and four inspectors. Their job is to provide an oversight and to make sure the inspections are being performed correctly. He stated that it is not the same person performing all the inspections. Number 2305 STUART HALL, Ombudsman, Legislative Agencies and Offices, stated that the state report concerning the operation of the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit arose out of a complaint from an Anchorage commercial vehicle owner, who suggested that the commercial vehicle enforcement was causing the operators and the unit to be in non- compliance with the semi-annual inspections required by the existing statute. Mr. Hall stated he found this to be true after his investigation. Number 2342 MR. HALL stated that on a semi-annual basis 60,000 vehicles need to be inspected; the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Units was only able to inspect 1 percent of the 60,000 vehicles. A program change from semi-annual to annual inspections would still cause the statute to be in compliance with the federal law not effecting the eligibility for a federal grant. Mr. Hall further stated that if the program inspection failed to comply with the federal regulations the inspection funds would be the only funds in jeopardy not the entire DOT&PF ISTEA fund. Number 2407 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if it was correct that on an annual basis 2 percent of the 60,000 vehicles were being inspected. MR. HALL stated that to be about right and that Mr. Brownfield indicated that he has a total five inspectors but he would need five in Anchorage, two in Kenai, two in Southeast and two in Fairbanks in order to be able to comply with the existing law. Number 2442 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the investigative staff examined what the appropriate level of inspection should be. MR. Hall replied no they did not. Number 2454 BRAD BROWN, sergeant, Alaska State Trooper Vehicle Inspection, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, stated that the troopers are trying to do the job correctly and be in compliance with the MCSR to insure that the annual inspections are being performed. He stated that it is not possible to inspect every truck in the state. Mr. Brown addressed the issue of loss of federal money, and stated that if the ATA does not comply then the ATA would be sanctioned resulting in a cut back of the enforcement personnel. TAPE 97-2, SIDE B Number 010 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that it seems the law is being amended to fit the amount of state resources available for inspection without answering the question of how much inspection is necessary. He stated he is not sure the decision should be just based on resources verses being based on what is necessary. Number 052 CHAIR MASEK stated that safety and inspection matters are very important and the committee, while working on a committee substitute will address all concerns involved to work towards the common goal of safety. Number 071 CHAIR MASEK stated hearing no further comments, the committee will take this matter up in a future meeting to work on a committee substitute for HB 83.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|