Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
02/21/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB271 | |
| HB258 | |
| HB270 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 258-NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
1:38:52 PM
CHAIR P. WLSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 258, "An Act directing the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to develop and implement
standards and operating procedures allowing for the use in the
construction and maintenance of transportation projects and
public facilities and in the construction of projects by public
and private entities of gravel or aggregate materials that
contain a limited amount of naturally occurring asbestos, and
authorizing use on an interim basis of those materials for
certain transportation projects and public facilities; relating
to certain claims arising out of or in connection with the use
of gravel or aggregate materials containing a limited amount of
naturally occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective
date."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 258, Version 27-LS0400\E,
Nauman, 2/19/12, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purpose of discussion.
1:39:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is found in several
areas of the state. He related that while ways to mitigate the
problems exist, NOA has been a recurring problem in the upper
Kobuk communities of Ambler and Kobuk. He referred to a notice
in committee members' packets from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division, Alaska region (FAA), dated
August, 15, 2011. A sentence under an Ambler airport project
read, as follows, "Project delayed until a suitable material
source can be found that does not contain asbestos." The letter
refers to the Ambler Airport, and the communities have not been
able to "turn a shovel" on capital projects for several years.
He explained that a draft bill sought to rectify this, but
unfortunately the issues were not resolved. He further
explained that he has worked with DOT&PF and Legislative Legal
in hopes to remedy the situation. He highlighted that some land
ownership issues make this problem unique, but the issue is that
asbestos is found in its naturally occurring state and dust is
kicked up every time an airplane lands or takes off. Thus
communities cannot fix water and sewer systems, build housing
projects, remedy school playground issues, repair a bridge that
is close to collapse, or repair their airport. Normally,
obtaining capital projects for the community means people can
work and provide for their families, which has not has not been
the case in Ambler. Additionally, a school construction project
in Kobuk has been hampered. He concluded that he has worked
with the administration to find remedies for the issue of using
NOA.
1:43:14 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the NOA is causing health problems
in the community.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered he was unaware of any health
related impacts that have occurred. He recalled some people
were surveyed several years ago. He further recalled the
results were "fairly clean" except for people with issues such
as tobacco use. He indicated that NOA use has become
problematic in terms of how it is regulated by the state.
1:44:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that this bill does not have a
further referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He
said the bill contains extensive tort immunity sections. He
expressed concern that the immunity granted may be broader than
necessary. He recalled a case in which a man lost his thumb.
He referred generally to page 3, line 15, through page 4, line
11, to Section 2. He then referred more specifically to page 3,
line 27, and read, "for an act or omission occurring in the
course of extracting, supplying, transporting, or using
gravel..." He related a scenario in which a person employed by
a trucking company drives drunk and hits someone. He expressed
concern that this language may immunize the driver. He asked to
consider this matter further.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered his belief this specific section
has been thoroughly reviewed.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. Version E was
before the committee.
1:47:54 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced himself.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, introduced herself.
1:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for details on the immunity
section and expressed his concerned about potential overreach of
immunity.
MS. NAUMAN offered a sectional analysis and explained that
Section 1 of the bill contains legislative findings and purpose
statements to explain and support the measure.
MS. NAUMAN related that Section 2 of the bill creates immunity
sections that Representative Gruenberg previously mentioned
1:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for further discussion on the
immunity section.
MS. NAUMAN explained that the immunity section basically
forecloses a suit against a defendant on the basis of ownership
of land or in the course of extracting or supplying,
transporting or using gravel or other aggregate material
containing NOA less than .025 percent as long as those actions
or omissions are within the requirements of AS 18.31.250, the
section for private contractors, and AS 44.42.410(b), which
pertains to the requirements for public construction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to reserve his questions on
immunity.
1:51:54 PM
MS. NAUMAN referred to subsection (c), which would foreclose a
suit against the state in the course of approving or creating
the monitoring and mitigating plan developed under this bill.
1:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 4, line 4, of Version
E, to subsection (b). He said the key phrase is "direct control
or responsibility." He commented that this would seem to limit
possible defendants. He asked for clarification of who would be
the possible defendants with direct control and those without
direct control. He further asked which class of people would be
eliminated by the term "direct control." He recalled a bill he
currently has before the legislature that pertains to anti-trust
and to those directly and indirectly damaged. He characterized
this area as a big issue. He explained that his bill pertains
to classes of plaintiffs while HB 258 pertains to classes of
defendants.
MS. NAUMAN answered that subsection (b) describes who can be
sued over non-compliance of land for both the site use plan and
the monitoring mitigation plans. She said a suit can only be
brought for noncompliance against essentially the person who has
primary control over that plan and some control over
construction site.
1:54:40 PM
MR. ANDERSON explained that the site-specific plan identifies
actions from the extraction to the construction plan, chain of
the construction project and applies to extractors,
transporters, drivers, and construction workers for the project.
This subsection was developed in order to preserve immunity for
extractors and transporters who performed adequately, even when
a construction contractor did not. Thus, if he is correct, the
immunity would not apply to anyone in noncompliance, or anyone
who doesn't follow the rules.
MS. NAUMAN agreed.
1:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related a scenario in which someone
knowingly and recklessly is aware that the rules are not being
followed, which creates a hazardous condition and causes an
injury. He questioned whether the specific person, who would
normally quite culpable, is also being immunized.
MS. NAUMAN related her understanding that is how this bill
functions. She explained the person held responsible is the
person who has responsibility over the compliance requirements
set out in the permitting sections of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that AS
18.31.250 and AS 44.42.410(b) pertains to permitting statutes.
He referred to page 3, lines 27-28, "...occurring in the course
of extracting, supplying, transporting, or using gravel..." He
related a scenario in which someone negligently manufactures
earth moving equipment without providing adequate safety
mechanisms so subsequently someone is injured. He questioned
whether this provision would also immunize the caterpillar
company or the company that manufactured the equipment.
MS. NAUMAN said her interpretation is different. She explained
that an act or omission must be in compliance with the
permitting requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out his scenario, assumes that
the permitting was done properly, but the earth moving equipment
had a bolt loose and someone lost his/her hand. He said it
seemed that this provision would provide immunity even if
everyone operated in good faith. He further asked whether the
language would also provide immunity to the manufacturer.
MS. NAUMAN said she does not believe that immunity would be
extended in that circumstance because the action must be an act
or omission in compliance with the requirements of the
permitting section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to hold further questions until
those sections were covered.
1:59:42 PM
MS. NAUMAN turned to the sectional analysis and related that
Section 3 adds AS 18.31.250 to describe how a private person may
qualify for immunity through the permitting requirement.
MS. NAUMAN stated that Section 4 adds many new sections to AS
44.42.400, which is the DOT&PF section.
MR. ANDERSON remarked that the sponsor has worked with the
administration and in doing so has strengthened the proposed
program. Initially, the program was open-ended and would have
required each region to create its own program. This bill would
create one position in the DOT&PF Commissioner's office that
will perform preliminary work, create a database for known NOA
sites, and identify gravel near NOA sites. He commented that
the NOA sites could include communities such as Juneau, which
has many sources of clean gravel, but also has NOA.
MR. ANDERSON explained the process, including that posting the
NOA sites in the database allows the DOT&PF to identify NOA
sites for planning purposes, and would anticipate projects in
those regions to allow communities to stockpile clean gravel.
The sites would be published on the DOT&PF's website.
Additionally, the DOT&PF would work in conjunction with other
departments to cover any human health concerns. He related the
administration suggested this approach to consolidate and
catalog.
2:03:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he did not see any cause of
action against the entity that owned the property or against the
entity doing extraction; however, he could envision some
organization sued in direct compliance and under the immunity
section could not take action against the equipment manufacturer
for indemnification or third party liability. He stressed that
not only would the plaintiff be prevented, but the defendant
would also be prevented from seeking reimbursement for the
person who is truly at fault.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that his issue was a
legal issue separate from the NOA issue.
2:04:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 3, line 18, of Version E,
to subsection (a), and read, "A civil action or claim for
damages or costs alleging as asbestos-related death, injury,
illness, or disability or alleging asbestos-related property
damage...." He related his understanding that the intent is to
prevent the company using NOA on projects from being held liable
if someone has an asbestos-related illness. He questioned how
someone losing a thumb or other injury, resulting from
carelessness or not following a procedure or the design of the
equipment would have anything to do with asbestos. He inquired
as to whether this subsection would address the issue.
2:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that Representative Feige
made an excellent point, but the term "asbestos related" is not
defined. He said that a lawyer would try to make that as broad
as possible. He suggested defining the term so that not all
asbestos related illnesses are exempted. He related a scenario
in which workers must wear protective masks, but the masks are
defectively manufactured so the workers develop mesothelioma
cancer. He said he was unsure that immunity should cover these
types of problems. He characterized the bill as a good bill,
which could get delayed due to difficult policy legal questions
related to immunity.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested he may wish to work on the immunity
issues with Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON mentioned that the companion bill to HB 258 also
has a referral to the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee. He
stressed that immunity has been an issue from the start and the
sponsor shares his concern.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed he also shares the concern.
2:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE understood several types of asbestos and
forms exist, including long and short fiber asbestos. He said
that one type causes mesothelioma. He offered his belief that
the definition of NOA refers to different mineral types. He
identified part of issue as the loose definition of asbestos
that is damaging. He asked whether the definition for the
asbestos of the type that is problematic to health could be
tightened up.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he has held discussions with DOT&PF
today on the definition of asbestos and the sponsor has been
considering adding a second definition for asbestos. He agreed
the definitions could be tightened up.
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN wondered if Alaska is only place that
has NOA, and if not, how other states and municipalities have
addressed the issue.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that other jurisdictions already have
built their roads.
MR. ANDERSON answered that California and Virginia have NOA
programs including regulations to monitor use of any NOA. He
recalled that 12 other states are currently considering adopting
similar regulations.
2:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if possible to look at other
legislatures' models in terms of culpability and perhaps not
have to reinvent the wheel.
MR. ANDERSON agreed. He offered that a substantial amount of
the language in the bill comes from California's regulations.
He acknowledged that HB 258 contains an expanded immunity
section. He pointed out that Ambler has some gravel which may
contain NOA. The sponsor also encourages the proper use of
gravel containing NOA. He offered to research how other states
handle NOA.
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it would truncate his questions,
if the bill had a House Judiciary Committee referral. He
related his understanding that this bill seems like good idea,
but the bill raises issues not normally considered in this
committee. He reiterated that he did not have problems with the
concept of the bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that the liability issues are not usually
discussed in this committee.
2:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether NOA is in the dust in the
region and for any health issues identified in the community.
MR. ANDERSON answered that NOA exists in Ambler, and gravel has
been used in prior construction projects, but at the time the
projects were developed testing was not being conducted and
regulations did not exist. He offered his belief that since NOA
exists he assumes NOA also existed when the projects were built.
He referenced the public health study Representative Joule
mentioned earlier.
2:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ questioned whether the changes that make
the materials unacceptable were due to federal or state law.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he was unsure, but now that testing
can be done and NOA has been discovered in the communities that
they are prohibited from using it.
2:16:15 PM
MS. NAUMAN pointed out that gravel containing NOA can be used,
but it creates open liability for suits related to people
contracting diseases such as mesothelioma. This bill would
prevent that risk by foreclosing the suit on the basis of
asbestos related illness.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on whether lawsuits
would be prevented if everyone in the community contracted
mesothelioma.
MS. NAUMAN offered her belief if all of the actions were in
compliance with the permitting requirements that would be the
case.
2:17:47 PM
ALICE EDWARDS, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC0, stated that the department has
coordinated with other agencies and the sponsor on HB 258. She
highlighted that the department's primary concern is to try to
mitigate any public health hazards which result from being
exposed to the NOA materials used in these projects. She
acknowledged that lots of NOA exists and has been used in these
communities. The Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) has conducted studies and can better address the issues.
MS. EDWARDS said that the primary health impacts are those from
exposure to inhaled asbestos fibers. She explained that when
asbestos materials are used on road surfaces, dust is kicked up,
and people can inhale it. She related her understanding there
is no safe level for contact with asbestos so people in these
communities are being exposed to it from dust and use of NOA
gravel.
2:19:41 PM
MS. EDWARDS deferred to public health, but said she was not
aware of any actual cases of health concerns that have occurred
as a result of the exposures; however, impacts that may occur
over a lifetime so some cancers or diseases may not show up for
a long time.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how long the community has been there.
MS. EDWARDS said she did not know.
2:20:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON surmised that if it were harmful that the health
concerns should have been found in the elderly.
MS. EDWARDS pointed out that some populations are small, but
deferred to DHSS to better answer exposure risks. She related
her understanding that very small exposures can lead to
asbestos-related diseases as well as high exposures for people
who have worked in industries that have been exposed to
asbestos-related materials. In response to a question, she
answered she believed there are differences in the types and
forms of asbestos, such as short versus long fibers in terms of
health risks they pose.
2:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related his understanding that the
division has performed air quality testing and has developed
baseline data. He suggested if this bill passed and NOA was
used and suddenly breathing problems or other health issues
arose that the department would know how much additional
asbestos was added.
MS. EDWARDS agreed air monitoring was done but she was uncertain
whether the division could detect changes. She acknowledged
some baseline work has been performed, including the EPA
conducting air sampling. The DEC has looked at dust and
particulate matter for asbestos and prior health studies, which
provide a baseline. However, she was unsure whether the
division would be able to distinguish between new or old
asbestos sources, and if it would be possible to separate them.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the exposure would be higher
during construction.
2:22:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 11-15,
related to federal preemption. He read, "...fibers are a
significant threat...and are subject to close regulations by
federal and state authorities...." He referred to the federal
sites Clean Air Act (CAA) and Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). He related his understanding that these laws pertain to
one issue, which is use of materials containing NOA in
construction projects. He asked whether Ms. Nauman has
researched the federal regulations to the extent that she could
answer whether any constitutional issues exist with respect to
the indirect violations of the interstate commerce clause or the
supremacy clause due to the close regulation by federal
authority.
MS. NAUMAN offered to further research this. She related her
understanding is that the aforementioned acts refer to asbestos
which is not naturally occurring. She said that would explain
the second clause, which read "...use of materials containing
naturally occurring asbestos in construction projects may be
regulated by states;".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, assuming she was correct, inquired as
to whether any other federal regulations that may be involved.
He asked to hear from any of the departments if they were aware
of any federal issues.
2:26:04 PM
MS. NAUMAN turned to the sectional analysis. She related that
Sections 5 and 6 are temporary provisions to help bridge the gap
since this bill has an immediate effective date. She stated
that Section 6 outlines the testing method.
2:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that he serves on a Council
of State Governments' committee on suggested legislation. He
referred to Section 6 of Version E, to page 10, lines 22-30. He
explained that this establishes that until DOT&PF adopts the
method of bulk testing that the department shall use California
Air Resources Board Method 435 as the basis for determining the
asbestos content. He was aware some people expressed concern
that Alaska may be deferring its regulatory authority. He
recalled that other states expressed similar concerns. He
merely pointed out that the deferral authority is in this bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that this provision would be
temporary so she said she was not concerned.
2:28:42 PM
SCOTT JONES, Vice Mayor, City of Ambler, stated that he has been
the mayor for five or six years. He has lived in Ambler since
the 1970s. He said he has heard so many questions on the
asbestos issue today. He related his understanding that it
takes 25-40 years for asbestos to affect health. He reported
that about 20 people in past 20-25 years have had respiratory
issues, but these people did not specify whether they were
smokers. He pointed out that smokers are 80-100 times more
susceptible to respiratory problems than anyone exposed to NOA.
MR. JONES said he was involved in August 2007 with an airport
rehabilitation during which Nortech Environmental Engineering,
Health and Safety (NORTECH) tested operators and airport workers
involved with handling NOA, but the results did not show any
significant impact. He recalled other testing has been done by
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). He detailed
the monitoring and protective measures taken during airport
rehabilitation. He reported that there are seven types of
asbestos consisting of short and long fiber materials. The long
fiber asbestos does not pose a problem until it is crushed or
ground and becomes airborne. He also recalled comments made by
one tester during the mid-1990s that there was so much dust in
Ambler the equipment could not get a reading on the asbestos.
He further recalled the findings were that the silt dust
constituted more of a health risk than NOA. He expressed
concern over the committee's discussions to get the details
right while nine people live in 2-bedroom houses in Ambler. He
stated that no hew houses have been built since the 1990s due to
the asbestos and requirements of all federal monies.
2:33:27 PM
MR. JONES related that Ambler obtained a special waiver from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) due to the dust problem in
Ambler. He reported that it took a coordinated effort between
NANA Regional Corporation, the DOT&PF, and Ambler to make the
airport project happen. He identified the biggest problem has
been a lack of regulations. He said California has all seven
types of asbestos, but has developed regulations to allow them
to use the material and mitigate the dust problems. He urged
people to adopt rules, regulations, and procedures. He
described the worst of the dust occurs during June, July,
August, and September, but dust is less of a problem the rest of
the year and it is not an issue when it rains or snows.
2:35:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the most recent census figures.
MR. JONES answered the population is 266.
CHAIR P. WILSON inquired as to the percentage of smokers.
MR. JONES answered that smoking is still pretty common. He
estimated about 25 percent of the population are smokers.
2:36:17 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if he has ever considered moving.
MR. JONES answered no.
2:36:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the 14th Alaska State
Legislature adopted statutes related to removing asbestos from
schools, including a training program. He suggested the
community may wish to look at the training aspects of that
specific program.
MR. ANDERSON admitted he was not aware of the statute, will look
into the program. He offered to report back to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the program was not done
at state expense.
2:37:49 PM
UKALLAYSAAQ OKLEASIK, Planning Director, City of Ambler stated
that Ambler is a very beautiful community south of Brooks Range
and Noatak National Preserve along the Kobuk River. He
characterized it as a wonderful place to live. Historically,
the area was identified as an asbestos resource and in the 1940s
the Arctic Circle Exploration Company mined. Mining was
discontinued during WWII and due to a decline in asbestos uses.
He related that asbestos is a high quality resource associated
with jade and two local mountains are called Jade and Asbestos
Mountains. In 2003, concerns were raised by the community and
the Maniiliq Association due to the dust. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry conducted an investigation and
published a report in 2007 which confirmed NOA was found in the
gravel. The NWAB supports HB 258. He explained that the
assembly will hear a resolution later this month. He said a lot
is at stake for the villages along the Kobuk River, not just
Ambler, but potentially in Kobuk village with new school
construction and NOA issues. Other communities such as
Shungnak, Juneau, and Fairbanks in Alaska also have NOA issues.
He explained that lots of studies have been conducted including
studies performed by the DOT&PF since 2003, which identified
problems and recommendations to use NOA safely. He referred to
a September 2009 Nortech report that outlined recommendations
based on the experience and policies of other states including
California and Virginia.
2:41:05 PM
MR. OKLEASIK stated that the issue is holding up community
development at the airport, road maintenance, new housing, water
and sewer. He pointed out the necessity to replace gravel just
to maintain their system. He highlighted that beach and river
erosion projects have also been put on hold. He concluded that
the community is really suffering since its infrastructure is on
hold. He offered his belief that the bill provides a very easy
solution to allow work with NOA and would allow community
development to happen.
2:42:21 PM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, Corporate and Public Policy Liaison, NANA
Regional Corporation (NANA), stated that NANA supports this
bill. She explained that about $10 million in projects are on
hold due to NOA issues, but the projects need to move forward.
She offered that the Northwest Arctic Leadership Team,
consisting of leadership of the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB),
the NWAB School District, Maniilaq Association, which is the
tribal organization, and NANA all support the bill. She
reiterated that the bill has widespread community support,
including Ambler. She reported that NANA is a large land owner
in the region and owns about 38,000 square miles including
gravel resources.
2:44:14 PM
LANCE MILLER, Vice President, NANA Regional Corporation (NANA)
stated that the iron rich rocks have existed for quite a while.
He related that these rocks contain various asbestos minerals
found throughout the Brooks Range and Southeast Alaska. In
response to Representative Feige, he reported that the NOA type
is chrysotile, which is the least toxic type of asbestos.
However, from the perspective of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), it doesn't matter since it is an asbestos form of
mineral. He reiterated that about $10 million in projects are
on hold. He said Ambler is relatively new village, but people
have been up along the river for upwards of 10,000 years. Some
of the highest concentrations of asbestos are in the gravel bars
right in front of Ambler since asbestos is deposited as part of
a winnowing effect. He recalled a reference to a health study
which did not find any evidence of mesothelioma. He agreed
exposure presents a good question, but pointed out that NOA has
been around for a long time and people have been breathing it.
He asked to have NANA on record as supporting the bill to move
the projects forward. He emphasized that a lack of legislation
presents an issue for landowners. He acknowledged some critical
airport emergency issues need to move forward. In response to a
question, he agreed he would be available to answer questions.
[HB 258 was held over.]
2:48:09 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 271 draft.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Fed Standard CMV.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 SPONSOR.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Vehicle classes.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB0271A.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB271-DOA-DMV-2-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB0270A.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270- Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270- Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270 Changes in Airport Passenger Screening.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 258 vB.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 258 INE study.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DEC-AQ-02-16-12 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Fiscal Notes.msg |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DHSS-EPI-02-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DOLWD-LSS-2-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| Hb 271 Ak Truck support.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 NFIB Support.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| Hb 271 Norcom Operations.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB271 AGC Letter.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 258 CS Sectional Ver E.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 258 CS Sectional Ver E.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |