Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/23/2018 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+ HB 259 CONFINING VEHICLE LOADS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 330 DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                       February 23, 2018                                                                                        
                           1:31 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Matt Claman, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
Representative Chuck Kopp                                                                                                       
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)                                                                                     
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Lora Reinbold                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 330                                                                                                              
"An  Act authorizing  the commissioner  of  natural resources  to                                                               
disclose   confidential  information   in  an   investigation  or                                                               
proceeding, including  a lease royalty audit,  appeal, or request                                                               
for  reconsideration and  issue a  protective order  limiting the                                                               
persons who have access to the confidential information."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 259                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to containing or confining loads being                                                                         
transported on highways."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 330                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
02/05/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/05/18       (H)       JUD, RES                                                                                               
02/16/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/16/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/16/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/21/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/21/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/21/18       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/23/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 259                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CONFINING VEHICLE LOADS                                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): STUTES                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
01/08/18       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/18                                                                                
01/16/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/18       (H)       TRA, JUD                                                                                               
01/25/18       (H)       TRA AT 1:15 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
01/25/18       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
01/30/18       (H)       TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
01/30/18       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
02/01/18       (H)       TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
02/01/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/01/18       (H)       MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                            
02/08/18       (H)       TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
02/08/18       (H)       Moved CSHB 259(TRA) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/08/18       (H)       MINUTE(TRA)                                                                                            
02/09/18       (H)       TRA RPT CS(TRA) 1DP 5AM                                                                                
02/09/18       (H)       DP: STUTES                                                                                             
02/09/18       (H)       AM: KOPP, CLAMAN, DRUMMOND, EASTMAN,                                                                   
                         WOOL                                                                                                   
02/21/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/21/18       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
02/23/18       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff                                                                                                               
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 330, presented                                                                  
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ED KING, Special Assistant                                                                                                      
Commissioners Office                                                                                                            
Department of Natural Resources                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 330, answered                                                                   
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MATT GRUENING, Staff                                                                                                            
Representative Louise Stutes                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 249, presented the                                                              
legislation on behalf of Representative Stutes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HILARY MARTIN, Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                        
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN ABEL                                                                                                                      
Seattle, Washington                                                                                                             
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
KELLY ROY                                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
AVES THOMPSON                                                                                                                   
Executive Director                                                                                                              
Alaska Trucking Association                                                                                                     
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
EDWARD MARTIN                                                                                                                   
KEE Construction                                                                                                                
Cooper Landing, Alaska                                                                                                          
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, testified.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DAN SMITH, Director                                                                                                             
Measurement & Commercial Vehicle Standards Enforcement                                                                          
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of CSHB 259, answered                                                                 
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN DAN LOWDEN                                                                                                              
Deputy Commander                                                                                                                
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Division of Alaska State Troopers                                                                                               
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:   During the hearing of CSHB  259, answered a                                                             
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:31:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MATT  CLAMAN called the House  Judiciary Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to order  at 1:31  p.m. Representatives  Claman, Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins, Millett (alternate  for Representative Reinbold), Stutes                                                               
(alternate  for Representative  Fansler), LeDoux,  and Kopp  were                                                               
present at the call to  order.  Representative Eastman arrived as                                                               
the meeting was in progress.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
          HB 330-DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:33:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  330,  "An Act  authorizing  the commissioner  of                                                               
natural  resources to  disclose  confidential  information in  an                                                               
investigation  or proceeding,  including a  lease royalty  audit,                                                               
appeal,  or request  for reconsideration  and issue  a protective                                                               
order limiting  the persons who  have access to  the confidential                                                               
information."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:34:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved  to adopt Amendment 1,  which read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[Amendment  1  did  not  go through  the  Legislative  Legal  and                                                               
Research Services  Office.   The legislative  drafting procedures                                                               
were not followed.]                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 25, following "department":                                                                               
          Insert "relating to oil and gas"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "a lease"                                                                                                  
          Insert "an"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20, following "royalty":                                                                                  
          Insert "or net profit share"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KREISS-TOMKINS   objected    for   purposes   of                                                               
discussion.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:34:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative  Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  advised  that the  general  intent  of Amendment  1                                                               
seeks to  limit the type of  disclosures that are subject  to the                                                               
protective  orders  for  oil  and gas  lease  audit  appeals  and                                                               
requests for  consideration, as opposed  to all types  of leases.                                                               
He  opined that  adding  this  net profit  share  after the  word                                                               
"royalty" [HB 330,  page 6, line 26] better  encapsulates what is                                                               
needed  (audio   difficulties)  the  types  of   work  for  these                                                               
disclosures.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:35:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  noted that  given the  addition of                                                               
"relating to  oil and  gas," he  asked whether  Mr. King  had any                                                               
communications with Usibelli Coal Mine,  Inc., as to whether this                                                               
will satisfy its concern.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SMITH advised  that they  had reached  out to  Usibelli Coal                                                               
Mine,  Inc.,  and  had  not received  a  confirmation  that  this                                                               
amendment would allay its concerns, but he believes it does.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:36:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Mr. Smith to  share with the                                                               
committee any  response it may  receive from Usibelli  Coal Mine,                                                               
Inc.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH responded that he  definitely would share Usibelli Coal                                                               
Mine's response with the committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:36:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ED KING,  Special Assistant, Commissioners Office,  Department of                                                               
Natural Resources, was available to testify.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Mr. King  to generally offer the  position of                                                               
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as to Amendment 1.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  referred to  the first change  within the  amendment as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 25, following "department":                                                                                   
          Insert "relating to oil and gas"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  KING  said  that  it  is DNR's  perspective  that  it  would                                                               
restrict or narrow  the scope of the protective  orders to issues                                                               
relating   only  to   oil  and   gas;  thereby   alleviating  the                                                               
hypothetical concerns of Usibelli Coal  Mine, Inc., or others may                                                               
have in the  mining community.  Generally speaking,  he said that                                                               
DNR does not object  to this narrowing of the scope  as it is not                                                               
aware of any issues, outside of  oil and gas, that would actually                                                               
use this  protective order.   Clearly, he pointed out,  DNR would                                                               
prefer the  more general  authority in the  event those  types of                                                               
situations arose in the future.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:37:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING advised that the  next two changes are technical changes                                                               
the department felt would benefit the bill, as follows:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "a lease"                                                                                                      
          Insert "an"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  KING explained  that the  words  "a lease"  before the  word                                                               
"audit"  is  not  necessary,  and  as a  modifier,  it  could  be                                                               
interpreted  to   modify  the  words  "appeal,   or  request  for                                                               
reconsideration," as well.  Therefore,  removing the word "lease"                                                               
was a  cleaner way to  approach this  issue, and then  making the                                                               
grammatical change from "a" to "an."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20, following "royalty":                                                                                      
          Insert "or net profit share"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. KING  explained that the  third change in this  amendment and                                                               
adding,  after  the word  "royalty,"  the  words "or  net  profit                                                               
share," of  which has to do  with the fact that  net profit share                                                               
lease terms are  not considered royalty payments.   Therefore, he                                                               
advised, when  DRN runs into  a situation  where it has  to audit                                                               
the net  profit share payments  to make certain that  revenue was                                                               
properly  paid  and collected,  DNR  wants  to make  certain  the                                                               
terminology is  there and there  is no  doubt that the  intent of                                                               
the legislature was to include those net profit share terms.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:39:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  withdrew  his objection.    There                                                               
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[HB 330 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                 HB 259-CONFINING VEHICLE LOADS                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:39:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  259, "An Act relating to  containing or confining                                                               
loads being transported on highways."   [Before the committee was                                                               
CSHB 259(TRA).]                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:40:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State                                                                
Legislature, offered his testimony as follows [original                                                                         
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Whether someone  overflows the bed of  their truck with                                                                    
     rocks and  gravel, plywood,  scrap metal,  loose debris                                                                    
     on their way  to the dump, or simply fails  to tie down                                                                    
     large  objects in  a flatbed,  unsecured  loads are  an                                                                    
     undisputed  hazard to  other users  of the  roadway and                                                                    
     pedestrians.   Improperly  secured   loads  can   cause                                                                    
     serious injuries, property damage, and fatalities.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     The AAA  Foundation for  Traffic Safety  concluded that                                                                    
     from 2011-2014, road  debris was a factor  in more than                                                                    
     200,000   police-reported    crashes.   Those   crashes                                                                    
     resulted  in  approximately  39,000  injuries  and  500                                                                    
     deaths. Additionally, the report  found that about two-                                                                    
     thirds  of these  accidents were  the  result of  items                                                                    
     falling  from  a vehicle  due  to  unsecured loads  and                                                                    
     improper  maintenance.  In  another study  by  the  U.S                                                                    
     Government  Accountability Office,  it  was found  that                                                                    
     there  were  approximately  440  fatalities  caused  by                                                                    
     roadway debris in  2010; that data was  gathered by the                                                                    
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     All  50  states  have  laws  that  require  drivers  to                                                                    
     properly  secure loads  in any  vehicle or  trailer and                                                                    
     impose  fees that  range from  $10 to  $5,000. In  most                                                                    
     states, failing to properly secure  a load is a traffic                                                                    
     violation.  In  Alaska,  even  if  it  results  in  the                                                                    
     serious   physical   injury,   it  is   an   infraction                                                                    
     punishable by  a fine not  to exceed $300.  However, 15                                                                    
     states have instituted  possible criminal penalties for                                                                    
     failing to properly secure loads.  I would also like to                                                                    
     note  that there  is a  legislative research  report in                                                                    
     members' packets that compares  those laws and provides                                                                    
     additional  information about  Maria's law,  which this                                                                    
     legislation closely resembles.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Last  year,   the  State  of   Alaska,  the   Mayor  of                                                                    
     Anchorage,  the Anchorage  Assembly, the  Mayor of  the                                                                    
     Mat-Su  Borough,   and  the  Mat-Su   Borough  Assembly                                                                    
     officially declared  June 6th  as Secure Your  Load Day                                                                    
     by  issuing proclamations  and resolutions  recognizing                                                                    
     the  hazards of  failing to  take the  simple steps  of                                                                    
     securely  affixing  every  load.  These  documents  are                                                                    
     included in members' packets.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     HB   259   increases   Alaska's  standards   for   load                                                                    
     securement  of  all  types of  materials  and  requires                                                                    
     covering or  maintaining six  inches of  freeboard with                                                                    
     loads  consisting  of  sand,  dirt,  gravel,  rock,  or                                                                    
     similar materials.  It also raises  a violation  to the                                                                    
     level of a Class A  misdemeanor on the first offense if                                                                    
     it results  in the  serious physical injury  to another                                                                    
     person or causes $1,000 or more in property damage.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     The legislation will  decrease roadway litter, property                                                                    
     damage, injuries, and  fatalities on Alaska's highways.                                                                    
     It is  a responsible measure  to protect the  safety of                                                                    
     Alaskan drivers  and avoid  costly repairs  that result                                                                    
     from the actions or inactions of others.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     As  invited  testimony today,  I  have  Robin Abel  and                                                                    
     Kelly Roy  online for  testimony. Robin  is not  only a                                                                    
     nationwide   expert   and   advocate   regarding   load                                                                    
     securement, but  she is  also the  mother of  the Maria                                                                    
     Federici,  who  is the  namesake  of  "Maria's Law"  in                                                                    
     Washington State. Robin's  24-year-old daughter, Maria,                                                                    
     was  struck by  piece  of particle  board that  escaped                                                                    
     from the  back of a  trailer in  front of her.  She was                                                                    
     nearly decapitated as the debris  crushed every bone in                                                                    
     her   face,  leaving   her  blind.   Miraculously,  she                                                                    
     survived.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     At  the   time,  there  was   no  law   addressing  the                                                                    
     consequences  of unsecured  loads  and  the driver  was                                                                    
     cited  for a  traffic infraction  and fined.  Robin has                                                                    
     dedicated her  life to changing the  law, educating the                                                                    
     public, and doing  whatever she can to  avoid this from                                                                    
     happening to others.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Thanks  to  Robin's   efforts,  Washington  legislators                                                                    
     adopted  what  has  been called  "Maria's  Law,"  which                                                                    
     criminalizes a  person's failure  to properly  secure a                                                                    
     load  that results  in injury  or death.  She has  been                                                                    
     leading education  and law changing efforts  across the                                                                    
     country, but  I will let her  speak to the rest  of her                                                                    
     story.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Also, for invited testimony, we  have Kelly Roy, who is                                                                    
     an Alaskan  who experienced  a very similar  tragedy to                                                                    
     Maria and  is also  fortunate to be  alive, but  I will                                                                    
     let her tell her story  personally to the committee. In                                                                    
     the  previous committee,  Kelly flew  all the  way down                                                                    
     from anchorage to  tell her story but was  unable to do                                                                    
     so today.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Kelly  is the  impetus  and driving  force behind  this                                                                    
     bill.   Her life has  been forever changed,  and again,                                                                    
     in  Alaska, there  was no  recourse  besides a  traffic                                                                    
     fine.  She has  been leading  the effort  in Alaska  to                                                                    
     raise awareness,  educated the  public, and I  am truly                                                                    
     grateful not  only that  she brought  this bill  to our                                                                    
     office, but that she had  the courage to tell her story                                                                    
     to  the   committee.  These  types  of   tragedies  are                                                                    
     completely avoidable  with few  simple steps  of taking                                                                    
     time to inspect your load and secure it properly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   advised  the   committee  that   the  legislation                                                               
currently before the committee is  CSHB 259, Version 30-LS0917\L,                                                               
and subsequent  to the  sectional analysis,  the motion  to adopt                                                               
Version L would be before the committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING presented the sectional analysis on CSHB 259,                                                                      
Version 30-0917/L, as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1 on Page 1, line  3 through Page 3, line 4: AS                                                                  
     28.35.251 is repealed and reenacted.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection  (a) (1)  and (a)  (2)  on page  1, lines  4                                                                  
     through line 9:                                                                                                          
          This subsection  states that  person is  guilty of                                                                    
     the crime  of failure to  contain or confine a  load in                                                                    
     the  first degree  if, with  criminal negligence,  they                                                                    
     violate  (b) and  as  result,  causes serious  physical                                                                    
     injury to  another person or property  damage of $1,000                                                                    
     or more. Criminal negligence applies  to the act of the                                                                    
     securing the load.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)(ii)  and (B)  on Page  1, lines                                                                  
     10 through Page 2, line 6:                                                                                               
          This  subsection specifies  that a  person commits                                                                    
     the offense of failure to  contain or confine a load in                                                                    
     the  second degree  if  the person  drives  or moves  a                                                                    
     motor  vehicle loaded  with any  material on  a highway                                                                    
     unless  it  is  secured  or  situated  in  a  way  that                                                                    
     prevents it  from escaping the  vehicle or  shifting to                                                                    
     the  extent  that   the  vehicle's  maneuverability  or                                                                    
     stability is adversely affected  or the load is treated                                                                    
     by   methods  approved   through   regulation  by   the                                                                    
     Department  of  Public  Safety  that  are  designed  to                                                                    
     settle the load  or remove loose material  before it is                                                                    
     driven on a highway.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (b)(2) on Page 2, lines 7 through 10:                                                                         
          This  subsection is  an  exemption that  specifies                                                                    
     that a person may drive  or move a motor vehicle loaded                                                                    
     with  sand, gravel,  dirt, rock,  or similar  materials                                                                    
     without   the   securement   requirements   listed   in                                                                    
     (b)(1)(A)(i)(ii)  and  (B)  if at  least  6  inches  of                                                                    
     freeboard  is maintained  around the  perimeter of  the                                                                    
     load or a cover is used and securely fastened.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (c)(1) on Page 2, lines 11 through 14:                                                                        
          This  subsection is  an  exemption that  specifies                                                                    
     that  the provisions  of this  act  do not  apply to  a                                                                    
     vehicle   that  deposits   sand,   liquids,  or   other                                                                    
     materials for the purpose  of cleaning, maintaining, or                                                                    
     improving traction on the highway.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (c)(2) on Page 2, lines 15 through 16:                                                                        
          This  subsection is  an  exemption that  specifies                                                                    
     that the  provisions of  this act do  not apply  to the                                                                    
     natural                                                                                                                    
     accumulation  of  snow,  ice,  mud,  dirt,  or  similar                                                                    
     materials.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (c)(3) on Page 2, line 17:                                                                                    
          This  subsection is  an  exemption that  specifies                                                                    
     that  the provisions  of this  act  do not  apply to  a                                                                    
     vehicle  that is  removing snow  or hauling  snow after                                                                    
     removal.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (d) on Page 2, lines 18 through 20:                                                                           
          This  subsection  specifies  that  in  prosecution                                                                    
     under (a),  which is  failure to secure  a load  in the                                                                    
     first degree, a person  being previously convicted of a                                                                    
     violation of this section is  prima facie evidence that                                                                    
     the   person  acted   with  criminal   negligence  when                                                                    
     securing the load.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (e)(1) on Page 2, lines 21 through 23:                                                                        
          This subsection  specifies that failure  to secure                                                                    
     a load in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (e)(2)(A), (B),  and (D) on Page  2, line 24                                                                  
     through Page 3, line 2:                                                                                                  
          This subsection  specifies that failure  to secure                                                                    
     a  load   in  the   second  degree  is   an  infraction                                                                    
     punishable  by a  fine of  not  more than  $300 on  the                                                                    
     first offense,  $750 on the  second offense,  $1,500 on                                                                    
     the third  offense, and $2,500  on the  fourth offense.                                                                    
     The penalty for the  first violation is consistent with                                                                    
     current statute.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (f) on Page 3, lines 3 through 4:                                                                             
          This    subsection    specifies   that    criminal                                                                    
     negligence in this section has  the meaning given in AS                                                                    
     11.81.900.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2  on Page 3,  lines 5 through 6.  AS 28.35.253                                                                  
     is amended by adding a new subsection:                                                                                   
          This  subsection  is  a  conforming  amendment  to                                                                    
     reflect the  repeal and reenactment of  AS 28.35.251 in                                                                    
     Section 1 of  the bill and the repeal  of AS 28.35.255.                                                                    
     AS  28.35.255   currently  houses  the   penalties  for                                                                    
     violations  of  both  AS 28.35.251  and  AS  28.35.253.                                                                    
     Violating AS  28.35.253 is currently an  infraction and                                                                    
     there is no substantive change.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Section 3 on Page 3, line 7:                                                                                             
          Repeals 28.35.255.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:51:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  moved to  adopt CSHB  259, Version                                                               
30-LS0917\L,  Bruce/Martin,  2/22/18,  as the  working  document.                                                               
There being no objection, Version L was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:52:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP,  in   response  to  Representative  LeDoux,                                                               
advised that  freeboard represents  the height of  the sideboards                                                               
of a  vessel or truck  before water flows  in, or the  load falls                                                               
out.  For example, he said,  if there are six inches of freeboard                                                               
on  a boat,  that means  the boat  is only  six inches  above the                                                               
waterline  before  sinking;  and  if  there  are  six  inches  of                                                               
freeboard in the  bed of a pickup truck, the  load has six inches                                                               
before it spills off of the truck.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:53:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    LEDOUX    referred    to   [Section    1.    AS                                                               
28.35.251(b)(2)], page 2, lines 7-9, which read as follows:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
               (2)  at  least  six inches  of  freeboard  is                                                                    
     maintained  around  the  entire  perimeter  of  a  load                                                                    
     consisting  of sand,  gravel,  dirt,  rock, or  similar                                                                    
     materials or the load is  covered and securely fastened                                                                    
     to prevent  the cover  from becoming loose  or detached                                                                    
     or from being a hazard to other users of the highway.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  advised  that she  understands  that  the                                                               
provision is  with regard  to sand  and dirt,  but it  would seem                                                               
that gravel and  rock could be loaded above the  six-inch line of                                                               
freeboard and  that this  might be a  loophole that  subsumes the                                                               
entire bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING responded that the  six-inch freeboard exemption was                                                               
copied  from Washington  State law  in the  form of  Maria's Law.                                                               
This law  was a negotiation  that was passed in  Washington State                                                               
between   the   bill   sponsor  and   the   Washington   Trucking                                                               
Association.  This  law has been in practice for  10-years and he                                                               
has  not  heard  about  any specific  issues  with  the  trucking                                                               
association, the bill sponsor, or  the people within which he has                                                               
been   in  communication   in  Washington   State,  he   advised.                                                               
Although,  he  acknowledged,  there  could be  an  instance  when                                                               
Representative LeDoux's comment  could take place, but  he is not                                                               
aware of  any issues with  that exemption as  to how it  has been                                                               
applied  or any  safety hazards  in  Washington State.   He  then                                                               
deferred to Robin Able who is  well aware of the effectiveness of                                                               
that  law,  and   she  has  worked  with   the  Washington  State                                                               
Department of Transportation (WSDOT).                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:55:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  commented that "if  it is so safe  for big                                                               
rocks,"  why  would there  not  be  the freeboard  exception  for                                                               
everything.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING answered  that if it was the will  of the committee,                                                               
that issue could be addressed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES explained  that  the rocks  are below  the                                                               
six-inch freeboard line  and opined that a big rock  would not be                                                               
picked up  and blown  out when traveling  fast down  the freeway.                                                               
Whereas, she pointed out, with  the six-inch freeboard and a load                                                               
of particle  board, for example,  even though there is  that six-                                                               
inch freeboard, there is still  the potential of the wind picking                                                               
up a corner of it and blowing it off the truck.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:56:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  responded that  it appears  the bill  is not                                                               
preventing  a  load  being  loaded  in  the  mounded  traditional                                                               
manner.  It is just that as it  comes down and runs into the wall                                                               
of the bed of the truck,  there had better be at least six-inches                                                               
of  freeboard so  as things  roll  around, the  six-inch wall  is                                                               
there to  catch the items.   He related  that it would  be almost                                                               
impossible to  load a belly-dump or  a dump truck flat  and there                                                               
would  be  a  mound  that  sticks  above  that  six-inches.    He                                                               
explained that that  is why the bill read,  "is maintained around                                                               
the entire perimeter," not that the entire bed is below a six-                                                                  
inch line as "that's a whole different thing."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING added  that  when  he spoke  with  the drafter,  he                                                               
specific asked  that it be crafted  in such a manner  as to allow                                                               
for  the  mound.     Thereby,  allowing  that   when  the  Alaska                                                               
Department  of Transportation  and Public  Facilities (DTPF)  and                                                               
commercial  vehicles  load those  types  of  materials, they  are                                                               
allowed to  have the  cone in  the middle, and  that was  a "very                                                               
specific intent," he emphasized.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:57:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS referred  to the  passage of  this                                                               
law in  other states and  asked whether any criminal  charges had                                                               
been  brought under  this  new law,  for  instance in  Washington                                                               
State.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  answered that  he  could  not offer  any  specific                                                               
information, although, enforcement of  this law typically happens                                                               
when an  accident occurs  and the  police get  involved.   To the                                                               
extent of  how often this  law is specifically enforced,  he said                                                               
he could not speak to that question.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:58:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS related  he  would like  to get  a                                                               
sense  as  to the  enforcement  frequency  of  this law  and  the                                                               
severity  of  the  accidents.   He  asked  about  the  sentencing                                                               
associated with a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  responded that  there is a  fine and  imposition of                                                               
jailtime.    He  referred  to  a class  A  misdemeanor  under  AS                                                               
12.55.035(a) and paraphrased as follows:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     A defendant convicted  of a class A  misdemeanor may be                                                                    
     sentenced  to a  definite term  of imprisonment  of not                                                                    
     more than one year, and  it is typically not imposed to                                                                    
     that maximum.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING then  referred to AS 12.55.035(b)(5),  which read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                    (5) $10,000 for a class A misdemeanor;                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  offered that  that fine is  rarely imposed  to that                                                               
maximum amount.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:00:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES asked  whether  Mr.  Gruening had  advised                                                               
that a current statute requires that rocks and sand are covered.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  clarified  that  the   load  either  needs  to  be                                                               
confined, contained, or covered, so the materials do not escape.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  pointed out  that this does  not supersede                                                               
that statute or preclude that requirement.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  advised that  it does  have the  six-inch freeboard                                                               
exemption,  which goes  to Representative  LeDoux's comment.   He                                                               
advised that  from his initial conversations  with the Washington                                                               
State  Department of  Transportation (WSDT)  and Robin  Able, the                                                               
six-inch freeboard  exemption appears to be  effective in keeping                                                               
items from escaping the vehicle, but  he is not an expert on that                                                               
issue, he said.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:01:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  whether  she should  be looking  at                                                               
another statute in conjunction with  this freeboard issue because                                                               
Version L uses the  word "or."  She referred to  page 2, lines 7-                                                               
10, which read as follows:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
               (2)  at  least  six inches  of  freeboard  is                                                                    
     maintained  around  the  entire  perimeter  of  a  load                                                                    
     consisting  of sand,  gravel,  dirt,  rock, or  similar                                                                    
     materials or the load is  covered and securely fastened                                                                    
     to prevent  the cover  from becoming loose  or detached                                                                    
     or from being a hazard to other users of the highway.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX   then   specifically  referred   to   AS                                                               
28.35.251(b)(2), page 2, lines 8-10, which read as follows:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                    (2) ...  perimeter of a  load consisting                                                                    
     of sand,  gravel, dirt, rock,  or similar  materials or                                                                    
     the load  is covered and securely  fashioned to prevent                                                                    
     the  cover  from becoming  loose  or  detached or  from                                                                    
     being a hazard to other users of the highway.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  whether the  language should  read,                                                               
"and the load is covered  and securely fastened" because there is                                                               
this large heap  of rock and, "we agree" that  the freeboard does                                                               
not have to  come up 2-3 feet.   Due to this  mound being similar                                                               
to  a  pyramid,  should  it  not read  that  there  is  both  the                                                               
freeboard  and  something  secured  around  the  rock,  sand,  or                                                             
gravel, she asked.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING related  that  he  follows Representative  LeDoux's                                                               
logic  and could  see how  "and" could  be tied  to AS  28.35.251                                                               
(b)(1)(A) and (i)(ii),  [Section 1, page 1, lines  10-14 and page                                                               
2, lines  1-2].  There would  either be the freeboard  or a tarp,                                                               
but that would need to be  tied to "it not escaping the vehicle,"                                                               
and  it  would  have  to  be  confined  and  have  six-inches  of                                                               
freeboard or  be confined and have  the tarp.  He  opined that if                                                               
it is  viewed as a loophole,  the word "and" could  be helpful in                                                               
that regard.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:03:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that oftentimes  in Anchorage,  gravel trucks                                                               
and trucks  are driving around  town transporting  uncovered rock                                                               
for construction  purposes and  the bed of  a trailer  carrying a                                                               
mound of  rock or  sand or gravel  is uncovered  and, oftentimes,                                                               
the  trucks  carry covered  loads  with  a  tarp.   Although,  he                                                               
commented, if  the word "and"  was used,  it would take  away the                                                               
current practice wherein  the truckers do have the  option of not                                                               
covering  those loads  when traveling.    In the  event "or"  was                                                               
changed to "and" on Page 2, line 8, it would cause that impact.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:04:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered a scenario  of a truck  carrying a                                                               
huge pile of  gravel with "a little bit" of  freeboard around it,                                                               
and the truck  suddenly stops causing all of the  gravel or rocks                                                               
to "go  every which  way."   She asked  whether that  scenario is                                                               
what this legislation is supposed to prevent.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented  that there actually is  a limit on                                                               
the  height of  the bed  under the  commercial vehicle  statutes,                                                               
which he opined is  12 inches or 18 inches.  Even  with a load in                                                               
the middle of  a "big belly-dump," it is almost  impossible for a                                                               
weight that heavy to shift and  come flying out, unless the truck                                                               
went  from zero  to  30 mph  in  about two  seconds.   The  mound                                                               
naturally occurs  when a  loader empties out  a huge  shovel into                                                               
the truck and  the material piles up.  He  stressed that the load                                                               
is not allowed to be 36  inches above the bed, and this freeboard                                                               
requirement would definitely be more  restrictive.  Loads are not                                                               
uniform  and can  be  odd shaped,  such as  when  taking apart  a                                                               
building and so  forth.  That is why the  committee would want to                                                               
leave the second  occurrence of the word "or" in  page 2, line 8,                                                               
where the  trucker can  tie down  and secure the  load.   In that                                                               
regard, he  pointed out, sometimes  the freeboard would  not work                                                               
at all due  to the odds pieces, shapes, and  angle irons sticking                                                               
out.  The  truckers would simply need to have  the load tied down                                                               
and secured.   Having  the dual  requirement, he  stressed, would                                                               
prevent truckers from being able to perform "a lot of things."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:07:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  surmised  that  Representative  Kopp  was                                                               
referring  to  commercial  trucks.   She  then  asked  about  the                                                               
private person who  put rocks in the back of  their pickup truck,                                                               
and  under this  legislation the  person can  stack the  rocks as                                                               
high as they prefer.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP commented  that the  person had  better have                                                               
the load properly secured.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she  thought the securing was the                                                               
freeboard.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  explained that  the person cannot  stack the                                                               
load as high as he wants to if there is a freeboard requirement.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN added  that  a  small pickup  truck  would be  more                                                               
restricted by  how much  weight could  be put in  the bed  of the                                                               
truck because the  pickup would break before it would  get to the                                                               
freeboard requirements.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:08:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  pointed to page  1 of CSHB 259,  and advised                                                               
that  there  are  two  ways  in   which  to  be  charged  with  a                                                               
misdemeanor  under  this  bill,   as  follows:  violation  of  AS                                                               
28.35.251(b) wherein the person does  not have a properly secured                                                               
load  to  prevent it  from  leaking,  spilling, escaping,  or  it                                                               
shifts  the  vehicle  in  a manner  that  adversely  affects  the                                                               
vehicle; and  on top of  that, violates  AS.28.35.251(a)(1)(2) by                                                               
causing  serious physical  injury to  another person,  or damages                                                               
the property  of another person in  an amount of $1,000  or more.                                                               
He  pointed out  that  under current  law,  a misdemeanor  damage                                                               
value  at  an  accident  scene  of $2,000  or  more,  requires  a                                                               
mandatory report to law enforcement.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether he  was suggesting that in  the world                                                               
of consistency to consider changing the value to $2,000 or more.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  thanked Chair Claman for  his assistance and                                                               
commented  that it  would  be consistent  in  the law,  currently                                                               
where the misdemeanor penalty kicks in for property damage.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The other issue, when looking  at a class A misdemeanor, includes                                                               
the  following: the  fact that  even a  second DUI  is a  class A                                                               
misdemeanor  - a  third  DUI in  seven years  is  a felony;  most                                                               
domestic   violent  assaults;   fairly   serious  assaults;   and                                                               
endangering  vulnerable  adults.    These examples  are  class  A                                                               
misdemeanors  and   these  misdemeanors  are  very   serious,  he                                                               
stressed.  Possibly, he suggested,  the committee could consider,                                                               
if  it is  to approve  a misdemeanor  penalty, changing  it to  a                                                               
class B misdemeanor may be more  appropriate, or not, the idea is                                                               
just for  discussion.  Quite  a range  of behaviors fall  under a                                                               
class  A  misdemeanor and  a  person  could receive  one-year  in                                                               
prison and a $10,000 fine, he pointed out.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:11:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred  to AS  28.35.251(e),  page  2,                                                               
lines 21-22,  sentencing for a  class A  misdemeanor, referencing                                                               
AS 12.55, and  noted that recently passed  legislation may impact                                                               
that statute  but the  supplementals are not  yet available.   He                                                               
asked  that Ms.  Martin  remind the  committee  what the  current                                                               
sentencing is for a class A misdemeanor.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:12:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HILARY MARTIN,  Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative  Legal and                                                               
Research  Services, Legislative  Affairs  Agency, responded  that                                                               
the  sentencing   for  class  A  misdemeanor,   as  Mr.  Gruening                                                               
reported, is under AS 12.55.135,  and it was amended under Senate                                                               
Bill 91 [passed in the  Twenty-Ninth Alaska Legislative Session].                                                               
The sentence  would actually  be 30-days  under the  statute, and                                                               
under Senate  Bill 91 it  was changed  that only certain  class A                                                               
misdemeanors  carry  a  penalty  of  one-year,  so  it  would  be                                                               
imprisonment  up to  30-days.   Defined under  AS 12.55.035,  the                                                               
sentence is up to $25,000 for  a class A misdemeanor, she opined,                                                               
which was also amended under Senate Bill 91.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:13:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on CSHB 259.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:13:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN  ABEL advised  that  she  is a  mother  living in  Seattle,                                                               
Washington who  had never  heard about  the six-inch  rule before                                                               
"this happened either."  She related  that she would tell a story                                                               
because this is all about behavior and change, as follows:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     My  daughter   was  driving  home  14-years   ago  this                                                                    
     morning.   And  so, if  I'm a  little emotional  you'll                                                                    
     know  why.   It  was  like it  was  yesterday that  the                                                                    
     hospital called  me and  said, "Your  daughter's alive,                                                                    
     please come  back to the  hospital."  I had  donated an                                                                    
     organ the night before because I  got a call out of the                                                                    
     blue, and it said,  "Is your daughter Maria Federichi?"                                                                    
     And, you  know, it was the  only time I ever  wanted to                                                                    
     say  no.   But I  said  yes.   And  when I  got to  the                                                                    
     hospital, they  said they  couldn't save  her life.   I                                                                    
     spent  the  next  few   hours  filling  out  paperwork,                                                                    
     donating her  organs.  But,  14-years ago  this morning                                                                    
     they  called me  and said,  "Come back,  she's fighting                                                                    
     for her life."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     The board  that went  through my  daughter's windshield                                                                    
     weighed 40  pounds, it destroyed  her eye  sockets, her                                                                    
     nose, her cheekbones, her palate.   She had no face and                                                                    
     it  almost completely  decapitated  her.   It left  her                                                                    
     blind, she  has great hearing,  she can dance,  and all                                                                    
     of the  things they said  she could  never do.   She is                                                                    
     blind and she  has severe brain damage.   Her life will                                                                    
     never be  the same because  someone made a  choice, not                                                                    
     for  the few  moments or  few dollars  time, to  secure                                                                    
     their load for their vehicle.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     I  have  since changed  two  laws  in Washington  State                                                                    
     namely because  they told me  that what happened  to my                                                                    
     daughter was no  more than a littering ticket.   It was                                                                    
     too late for  my child but it's worth it  to save other                                                                    
     lives and that is why I  do this.  Because, I know that                                                                    
     if I can  get a moment of compassion with  you, and I'm                                                                    
     a  little  bit  partial   to  the  Judiciary  Committee                                                                    
     because you guys  are the first committee  I ever spoke                                                                    
     before.   (Audio difficulties.)   I changed the  law in                                                                    
     Washington  State, the  one who  made sure  we got  the                                                                    
     general  accountability report  in Wasington  D.C., and                                                                    
     recently  Obama signed  off in  2012 saying  that there                                                                    
     was money available.  This  was a serious problem and I                                                                    
     encouraged  the states  to step  forward and  apply for                                                                    
     (indisc.).                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     I've since moved on and  had (audio difficulties) which                                                                    
     your  governor  did  agree  to,   and  it  has  been  a                                                                    
     wonderful way to educate the  public.  You guys know as                                                                    
     legislators and especially  in the judiciary committee,                                                                    
     changing  the law  is  only one  thing,  the hard  work                                                                    
     starts when  you have to  stand behind it and  stand up                                                                    
     and educate the public.   Because we don't all sit down                                                                    
     every  year and  say,  "Well, let's  look  at what  our                                                                    
     legislator did."  Okay.  And,  we can't do that.  So, I                                                                    
     ask you today to please  look at this law and seriously                                                                    
     consider  it.  You've  got an  amazing  Alaska  citizen                                                                    
     who's gonna testify  after me.  People  approach me all                                                                    
     the time  and ask me to  help them, but I  can count on                                                                    
     two hands  the people  that actually  made it  and came                                                                    
     forward.  But, I can only  raise one finger to a person                                                                    
     who has  gotten this  far and  it is  a young  woman in                                                                    
     your  state who  has  hurt herself  and  she asked  for                                                                    
     help.   I hope today  you will acknowledge that  she is                                                                    
     an  amazing Alaskan  citizen.   Because I'm  partial to                                                                    
     you, I hope  you'll be favorable to this bill.   I know                                                                    
     it  saves  lives, the  six-inch  rule  has not  been  a                                                                    
     problem  in our  state.   It allows  when a  -- when  a                                                                    
     truck (audio difficulties) and  doesn't pull out unless                                                                    
     they  are  already  exceeding (audio  difficulties)  so                                                                    
     it's been very  effective.  And, it was the  way we got                                                                    
     the  truckers  to  agree  to   support  this  law  that                                                                    
     absolutely did not find it  (audio difficulties) in any                                                                    
     way knowing that it was  that either that they complied                                                                    
     with the  six-inch law  or they cover.   Now,  the six-                                                                    
     inch law  does not apply to  any other load, okay.   It                                                                    
     is only dirt, sand, and  gravel, and rock.  So, please,                                                                    
     please  take  a   look  at  this  law,   give  it  your                                                                    
     consideration, we're  doing it for your  families, it's                                                                    
     too late  for our  family, and  please change  the law.                                                                    
     Thank you.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:18:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KELLY ROY offered testimony as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     My name is Kelly Roy,  and I am calling from Anchorage,                                                                    
     Alaska.   I want to  say thank  you, first of  all, for                                                                    
     listening to me today.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Around  three years  ago, I  was driving  on the  Glenn                                                                    
     Highway, and  there was a  driver on the road,  a truck                                                                    
     that was carrying an unsecured  load.  And, the truck's                                                                    
     unsecured  load came  apart sending  debris and  trash,                                                                    
     and  a   large  trashcan  that  came   straight  at  my                                                                    
     windshield.   Witnesses said my car  rolled four times,                                                                    
     and the Anchorage Fire Department  had to cut me out of                                                                    
     my  vehicle because  I was  trapped.   I was  driven to                                                                    
     hospital  with broken  bones, bruises,  cuts, but  what                                                                    
     nearly killed  me was a  massive blow  to my skull.   I                                                                    
     had brain bleeding both from  the outside and inside of                                                                    
     my brain.  Brain bleeding  that occurs on the inside of                                                                    
     the brain  causes survival rates  of about  30 percent.                                                                    
     I survived those  odds but not without  consequence.  I                                                                    
     was diagnosed  with a traumatic  brain injury,  a brain                                                                    
     injury that I  live with every day.  I  had no idea how                                                                    
     much I took for granted until  my brain was damaged.  I                                                                    
     tried  to fight  back to  get back  to the  simplest of                                                                    
     things, like  holding a fork  or brushing my  hair, and                                                                    
     walking  across the  room without  falling over.   Even                                                                    
     talking to  you today, right  now, is something  that I                                                                    
     had to get back, simply talking.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     February 16th  was three years  since my car  crash and                                                                    
     I'm still  in therapy.   Even today,  before I  came on                                                                    
     this  call  to  talk  to  the  committee,  I  have  had                                                                    
     (indisc.) nerve  feedback and  counseling therapy.   It                                                                    
     is a  weekly routine  for me.   All  of that  fight and                                                                    
     loss  was  because someone  could  not  be bothered  to                                                                    
     secure their load.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     There  is someone  else that  I would  briefly like  to                                                                    
     talk about today,  an article I found  that talks about                                                                    
     another   Alaskan  affected   by  an   unsecured  load.                                                                    
     Sargent Harris  was a  Fort Richardson  military police                                                                    
     who was traveling down on  Tudor Road when a projectile                                                                    
     came crashing through the  windshield at the equivalent                                                                    
     of 100  mph and hit  Sargent Harris  in the head.   The                                                                    
     projectile  was a  steel bar  about a  foot long,  four                                                                    
     inches  wide, about  an inch  thick, and  weighed about                                                                    
     five pounds.   It had apparently been ejected  off of a                                                                    
     pickup truck  and slid  -- and  shot into  the oncoming                                                                    
     lane and  then struck  the windshield.   Sargent Harris                                                                    
     died  of his  injuries the  following day,  he was  24-                                                                    
     years old.  The time that  that driver did not spend to                                                                    
     secure  his  load, Sargent  Harris  paid  for with  his                                                                    
     life, a fellow Alaskan like  myself, and someone who is                                                                    
     my  age.   In the  time that  my driver  did not  spend                                                                    
     properly securing  the load, I  have paid for  with the                                                                    
     rest of my life, I  paid for something that is entirely                                                                    
     preventable.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     A person  chooses not  to secure their  load just  as a                                                                    
     person chooses to get behind  the wheel of a car drunk.                                                                    
     Unsecured loads  are a huge  problem.   Anchorage Solid                                                                    
     Waste  Services   issued  1,392   fines  in   2016  for                                                                    
     unsecured loads.  1,392 negligent  drivers that were on                                                                    
     Alaska roads  that year, and 1,392  chances for someone                                                                    
     to  die  or  be  seriously  hurt.   And  that  is  just                                                                    
     accounting for drivers  going to the landfill.   I hope                                                                    
     that  this bill  will educate  and remind  everyone how                                                                    
     dangerous  an  unsecured  load is,  and  that  it  will                                                                    
     protect  everybody   in  this  state  and   hold  these                                                                    
     negligent  drivers accountable  for a  choice that  has                                                                    
     hurt and  killed so many people.   I ask that  you help                                                                    
     me  change  this  law,  change a  law  that  could  not                                                                    
     protect me  and cannot  protect anyone unless  there is                                                                    
     change.   And, I  thank you again  for listening  to my                                                                    
     story.  Thank you.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:23:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS referred  to  the 1,392  citations                                                               
from the  Anchorage Solid  Waste Services  and asked  whether she                                                               
has a sense of what constitutes  a citation or violation, and how                                                               
it relates to  the definition of failing to secure  a load in the                                                               
first or second degree, as written in CSHB 259.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. ROY  answered that her  general sense from  her conversations                                                               
with the  Anchorage Solid  Waste Services  is that  if a  load is                                                               
unsecured, the  driver receives a  ticket and  a fine.   The load                                                               
being unsecured when  it shows up at the landfill  means the load                                                               
traveled on the roadways and was unsecured, she remarked.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:24:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  thanked  her   for  bringing  this  issue                                                               
forward  because it  obviously  is  a problem  that  needs to  be                                                               
addressed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:24:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AVES THOMPSON,  Executive Director, Alaska  Trucking Association,                                                               
advised that the  trucking industry is heavily  regulated by both                                                               
the United  States Department of  Transportation (USDOT)  and the                                                               
Alaska Department of Transportation  and Public Facilities (DTPF)                                                               
through  their  commercial vehicle  enforcement.    Both sets  of                                                               
regulations contain  specific requirements  concerning securement                                                               
of  loads.   He  then  paraphrased  the  portion of  the  federal                                                               
regulation covering this  issue, which was also  adopted into the                                                               
Alaska Administrative Code, as follows:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Part 393                                                                                                                   
     Section  ? 393.100:  Which  types  of commercial  motor                                                                    
     vehicles are subject to  the cargo securement standards                                                                    
     of this subpart, and what general requirements apply?                                                                      
          (a) Applicability.  The rules  in this subpart are                                                                    
     applicable  to trucks,  truck tractors,  semi-trailers,                                                                    
     full trailers, and pull trailers.                                                                                          
          (b)  Prevention  against  loss   of  load.    Each                                                                    
     commercial motor vehicle  must, when transporting cargo                                                                    
     on public  roads be loaded  and equipped and  the cargo                                                                    
     secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent the                                                                     
     cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing, or falling from                                                                     
     the motor vehicle.                                                                                                         
          (c)  Prevention  against  the  shifting  of  load.                                                                    
     Cargo  must be  contained, immobilized,  or secured  in                                                                    
     accordance with this subpart  to prevent shifting upon,                                                                    
     or  within the  vehicle,  to such  an  extent that  the                                                                    
     vehicle's  stability  or maneuverability  is  adversely                                                                    
     affected.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  THOMPSON noted  that together  with these  broad regulations                                                               
are  specific  regulations  about  confining  and  securing  each                                                               
individual   type  of   load.     It  is   the  Alaska   Trucking                                                               
Association's position  that this legislation is  unnecessary and                                                               
duplicates the  requirements already in law  for commercial motor                                                               
vehicles, he advised.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:27:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  related  that she  understands  that  the                                                               
trucking  industry may  be regulated  by the  federal government,                                                               
but what  sort of criminal  penalties apply when  violating those                                                               
regulations.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. THOMPSON  deferred to the  DOTPF Commercial  Vehicle officers                                                               
because he is not a lawyer.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:28:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
EDWARD MARTIN,  KEE Construction,  advised that  KEE Construction                                                               
has numerous trucks, and further advised  that he is 63 years old                                                               
and has been  driving truck long before there were  CDL rules and                                                               
"long before there  was a lot of  laws."  He said  that he agrees                                                               
with Mr.  Thompson in  that this  legislation is  unnecessary new                                                               
rules, "under the  trucking rules and the commercial  codes."  In                                                               
the early days,  when he received his first CLD  license, he said                                                               
that he experienced a situation  where he traveled to Glenn Allen                                                               
to  pick up  a  D9  dozer in  minus  10-degree freezing  weather.                                                               
Prior to leaving Glenn Allen, he  cleaned the D9's tracks of snow                                                               
and  ice  to  the  best  of his  ability.    While  returning  to                                                               
Anchorage, the  snow on the  tracks of the  D9 thawed and  a rock                                                               
fell  off of  that tractor's  tracks onto  the deck,  and he  was                                                               
immediately fined  for an unsecure  load of  a rock on  the deck,                                                               
"of which  I didn't have  any idea," and  he paid the  $100 fine.                                                               
He  offered sympathy  for those  people  who are  injured due  to                                                               
unsecured loads, and  he understands the purpose  of Maria's Law.                                                               
Although, he  expressed he  does not believe  it is  necessary to                                                               
change the law  to "this freeboard thing" because it  seems to be                                                               
irrelevant.   He encouraged the  committee to not include  a tarp                                                               
requirement  on commercial  trucks that  haul gravel  due to  the                                                               
cost  of the  construction of  projects, the  lost labor  time in                                                               
attempting to  secure a tarp  that may possible flap,  "and maybe                                                               
in an  area where you cannot  see your load as  you are traveling                                                               
on  the  road."    People  need to  use  common  sense  here,  he                                                               
suggested.  In the event something  is written into a new law, he                                                               
offered  that there  should be  more defining  and the  committee                                                               
needs to apply  it, with an exemption, under  the current Federal                                                               
Motor Vehicle  Safety Standards (FMVSS) because  they are already                                                               
covered.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN listed  the names of the people  online available to                                                               
testify.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on CSHB 259.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:31:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked whether anyone was  online to answer                                                               
whether  any  criminal  penalties   are  imposed  when  a  person                                                               
violates the federal regulations.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:32:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAN SMITH,  Director, Measurement & Commercial  Vehicle Standards                                                               
Enforcement, Department of  Transportation and Public Facilities,                                                               
answered that  violations of 49 CFR  carry a fine of  either $150                                                               
or $300.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether "that  is it" even if someone                                                               
is killed, it is $150 or $300 under federal law.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. SMITH deferred to Captain  Dan Lowden, Alaska State Troopers,                                                               
and advised that the Alaska State  Troopers is the lead agency in                                                               
a  legal case  and  the commercial  vehicle enforcement  officers                                                               
assist the troopers.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Captain Dan  Lowden to  answer Representative                                                               
LeDoux's  question  about  criminal  sanctions,  wherein  someone                                                               
failed to  meet the  federal regulations  and whether  that would                                                               
subject the person to a  fine (audio difficulties) does not sound                                                               
like the federal regulations provide  for a criminal penalty.  He                                                               
asked whether there are crimes in  Alaska in which a person could                                                               
be charged.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:33:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN DAN  LOWDEN, Deputy  Commander, Central  Office, Division                                                               
of   Alaska  State   Troopers,  Department   of  Public   Safety,                                                               
Department  of  Public  Safety  (DPS) answered  that  he  is  not                                                               
familiar  with the  federal code  and its  rules.   Currently, he                                                               
explained, when a  trooper is called to a crash  where someone is                                                               
hurt, injured, or  dead, the trooper reviews all  of the statutes                                                               
available  for criminally  negligent homicide,  manslaughter, and                                                               
assault.  The  facts of the situation would  probably dictate how                                                               
the person was charged in those areas, he offered.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:33:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked  Ms. Martin whether she  is aware of                                                               
any statutory  limitation prohibiting anyone from  seeking relief                                                               
in civil court.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN  responded that there  is nothing that  would prohibit                                                               
civil action under this legislation.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:34:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to the language  "any material,"                                                               
and asked whether  there are any parameters about  the load being                                                               
discussed here.   He commented that when  the committee discussed                                                               
the  loads  generally,  the  context   was  "maybe  a  commercial                                                               
vehicle,  or gravel,  or dirt,  or something  like that,"  and he                                                               
asked  whether  there  is  any   type  of  weight  limitation  to                                                               
something that would not be confined in this statute.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  replied that there  is no weight threshold  in this                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:35:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  whether there  is a  limitation on                                                               
the type of materials that could  be caught up in this definition                                                               
of "load."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  answered that  he is  not an  attorney, but  in his                                                               
layman's definition of "any material," he would say no.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:35:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered a  scenario wherein  someone gets                                                               
into their car,  forgets to secure their trash,  and a McDonald's                                                               
cheeseburger wrapper flies  off.  He asked  whether that scenario                                                               
would  be caught  up in  this  definition of  "load," or  whether                                                               
there is anything  in the bill that would put  that scenario into                                                               
a separate category.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  replied that it  would be  caught up but  offered a                                                               
caveat to  his response and added  that if a McDonald's  bag flew                                                               
out of  a window, hit his  windshield causing him to  crash, that                                                               
scenario would be  covered under Section 1, "Failure  to secure a                                                               
load  in the  first-degree."    He opined  that  when looking  at                                                               
whether a  material is a  danger to motorists, the  wrapper could                                                               
be a  danger.  Although,  if the wrapper  simply flew out  of the                                                               
vehicle  and  a police  officer  witnessed  it, he  imagined  the                                                               
person would receive  a citation, and the first  instance of that                                                               
situation would be a $300 fine,  and there is a current littering                                                               
statute, as well.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:36:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked how  the current  littering statute                                                               
compares  if  a  person  is cited  under  subsection  (b),  which                                                               
violation would carry the greater penalty.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  deferred  to  Ms.   Martin  and  opined  that  the                                                               
littering  statute  is either  $150  or  it  is  $300 as  is  the                                                               
infraction in "the first one."   There is no sliding scale in the                                                               
bill currently  so the second  violation under the bill  would be                                                               
harsher than the current littering statute.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:37:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that the  current littering fine is up                                                               
to a  $500 fine, even on  a first offense.   Representative Kopp,                                                               
in response to Representative  Eastman's comments, clarified that                                                               
the  bill does  not  read  "any materials,"  and  referred to  AS                                                               
28.35.251(b), page 2, line 8, which as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
            (2)   perimeter of a load consisting of                                                                             
     sand, gravel, dirt, rock, or similar materials ...                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP pointed  out  that those  are  the types  of                                                               
materials the bill is addressing.   Also, he explained, currently                                                               
there  are  axle  weight  limits on  every  class  of  commercial                                                               
vehicles  in the  law that  must  be followed.   In  the event  a                                                               
person  overloaded a  passenger  vehicle, that  is considered  an                                                               
"improper load"  under 13 AAC or  Title 28.  For  example, in the                                                               
event a  car is  bottomed out  on its  shocks, a  law enforcement                                                               
officer can  fine the  driver for  an improperly  loaded vehicle.                                                               
Alaska  law  does  cover  situations  where  someone  might  take                                                               
advantage  of  weight  either  on  the  commercial  side  or  the                                                               
passenger vehicle side, he advised.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:39:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred to  CSHB  259,  Version L,  [AS                                                               
28.35.251(b)] page 1, lines 11-12, which read as follows:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     (b) ...second degree  if the person drives or  moves a motor                                                               
vehicle loaded with any material on a highway unless ...                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  the   types  of  materials  being                                                               
referenced.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that that  it is further defined on                                                               
page 2,  lines 7-10, [provision previously  typed], and explained                                                               
that the content must be taken in context.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:39:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  reminded  the committee  that  the  two  suggested                                                               
potential amendments are  as follows: an amendment  to change the                                                               
property damage amount from $1,000 to  $2,000, on page 1, line 8.                                                               
He  asked  the committee  whether  the  bill  should be  held  in                                                               
committee  in order  to take  up amendments  (audio difficulties)                                                               
and  the  committee  could  discuss   the  merits  of  those  two                                                               
amendments.    He  asked  whether any  member  is  interested  in                                                               
bringing up  the amendment that  would raise the  property damage                                                               
amount  from $1,000  to $2,000  in order  to track  the vehicular                                                               
damage statute Representative Kopp mentioned earlier.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:40:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  said  he  would  like  to  better                                                               
understand  the parallelism  it  may create  in association  with                                                               
class A misdemeanors.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  offered  that  a further  reason  for  that                                                               
amendment is  that a  small ding on  the hood of  a new  truck is                                                               
clearly over  $1,000.  In the  event the committee is  looking at                                                               
misdemeanor  territory,   "which  I'm  nervous  about,   for  the                                                               
record," the  committee definitely  wants to raise  that property                                                               
value.   The  $2,000  figure represents  the mandatory  reporting                                                               
requirement, otherwise a  person is in criminal  jeopardy at that                                                               
point, he explained.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:41:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS offered  his experience  of gravel                                                               
being  kicked  up from  other  cars,  and  that he  concurs  with                                                               
Representative Kopp.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN related  that there  appears to  be an  interest in                                                               
amending the  amount from $1,000  to $2,000 and advised  that the                                                               
bill would not be moved today.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES  asked  whether  that  amendment  language                                                               
would be considered a "friendly amendment."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:42:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:42 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:43:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  a broad support within the  committee for the                                                               
friendly amendment.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:43:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  offered  an interest  in  related                                                               
class  A misdemeanors  associated  with property  damage and  the                                                               
value threshold under current law.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN  LOWDEN  replied  that   class  A  misdemeanors  recently                                                               
changed and  he would have to  research the issue, and  he opined                                                               
that it may be $5,000.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that the set of statutes  broadly relating to                                                               
property  damage   are  probably  under  the   criminal  mischief                                                               
statutes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   explained  to  Captain  Lowden   that  the                                                               
committee  is  looking  at  property  damage  for  vehicles  that                                                               
trigger the  mandatory report  and asked  whether the  amount was                                                               
$2,000, or whether it was recently raised.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CAPTAIN LOWDEN advised  that he does not have the  figure off the                                                               
top of his head and would look it up during this hearing.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:45:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  said  that when  discussing  "freeboard"                                                               
there  was  talk  about  the  types  of  material,  except  under                                                               
subsection (b), generally,  there is no description  of any types                                                               
of  material.   His  concern  is whether  the  language, in  some                                                               
manner,  will prescribe  or limit  the types  of materials  being                                                               
discussed regarding a  load.  He opined that  most Alaskans would                                                               
not think of  a cheeseburger wrapper as a load,  and possibly the                                                               
committee needs to define "load"  because "any materials" appears                                                               
to be  broad.   While some  may say that  that is  not a  class A                                                               
misdemeanor, except  due to   the most recent change  in criminal                                                               
negligence, there could be a  situation where someone could be in                                                               
that  cheeseburger   wrapper  scenario,  be  convicted   of  that                                                               
scenario, suddenly they have a  conviction, and now whatever they                                                               
do  in  the  future  now (audio  difficulties)  category  due  to                                                               
littering.    He  asked  whether   that  is  the  intent  of  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING commented  that it would be difficult  to prove that                                                               
someone  acted  with  criminal  negligence  when  a  cheeseburger                                                               
wrapper flew out  of their truck.  As to  whether the word "load"                                                               
could  use further  defining as  to  "any material,"  he said  he                                                               
would  leave  that  up  to  the will  of  the  committee  through                                                               
discussions with the chair and drafters.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:48:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  noted that  after researching  the mandatory                                                               
reporting  requirement,   advised  that  the  amount   of  $2,000                                                               
triggers the mandatory reporting requirement.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  asked  whether  this  issue  requires  a  friendly                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:48:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:48 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:51:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  advised  that   while  off-record,  the  committee                                                               
discussed  taking  up  Conceptual  Amendment 1  to  CSHB  259  to                                                               
increase  the property  damage amount  on  page 1,  line 8,  from                                                               
$1,000 to $2,000.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:51:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP moved  to adopt  Conceptual  Amendment 1  to                                                               
CSHB  259, [to  increase the  property damage  amount on  page 1,                                                               
line 8, from $1,000 to $2,000].                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:51:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  referred to the discussion  of a possible                                                               
amendment to  change it from  a class A misdemeanor  to something                                                               
lower  than that  classification.   He  opined that  it might  be                                                               
important  especially  when  discussing damage  of  only  $2,000,                                                               
which  is fairly  easy to  reach when  dealing with  vehicles and                                                               
highways, and now  the person is at  risk of a $25,000  fine as a                                                               
class A misdemeanor for a fender  bender.  He remarked that he is                                                               
not  comfortable with  that because  he  believes that  threshold                                                               
would have  to be higher than  $2,000 and/or remove that  class A                                                               
misdemeanor label.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted  that the question of the  class A misdemeanor                                                               
is  a separate  question.   The only  issue before  the committee                                                               
currently is whether  to increase the property  damage amount for                                                               
the purposes of this bill from $1,000 to $2,000.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES called for the question.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN removed  his objection.   There  being no                                                               
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to CSHB 259, was adopted.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:53:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that  the committee would  now move  to the                                                               
more  complicated  question  about class  A  misdemeanors  versus                                                               
class B  misdemeanors in  terms of  what the  offenses represent.                                                               
He  advised that  he was  involved with  the sponsor's  office in                                                               
working on  the bill and  the two things to  bear in mind  are as                                                               
follows:  at  least two people involved in  the trucking industry                                                               
are   unhappy,  although   they   are   currently  covered   with                                                               
regulations that  dictate the  requirements that  truckers secure                                                               
their  loads;  and there  were  1,392  failures to  secure  loads                                                               
citations at  the Anchorage Solid  Waste Services  which suggests                                                               
this may be more directed at  consumers who do not know what they                                                               
are doing,  rather than the  truckers.  Public  testimony clearly                                                               
pointed  out  that the  risk  of  not  securing  a load  and  its                                                               
potential damage is enormous, he remarked.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:54:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP offered  that a  key issue  here is  that in                                                               
order to  reach the  class A misdemeanor,  the person  would have                                                               
had to  have committed this  violation with  criminal negligence.                                                               
He  referred  to [AS  28.35.251(a),  page  1] line  6,  "criminal                                                               
negligence" and explained that criminal  negligence is the mental                                                               
state  that  must apply  under  AS  11.81.900(4), which  read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          (4) a person acts  with "criminal negligence" with                                                                    
     respect to a  result or to a  circumstance described by                                                                    
     a provision of law defining  an offense when the person                                                                    
     fails to perceive a  substantial and unjustifiable risk                                                                    
     that  the result  will occur  or that  the circumstance                                                                    
     exists; the  risk must be  of such a nature  and degree                                                                    
     that  the failure  to perceive  it constitutes  a gross                                                                    
     deviation from  the standard of care  that a reasonable                                                                    
     person would observe in the situation.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that  "normal negligence" would not                                                               
bump a  person into  misdemeanor territory,  it must  be criminal                                                               
negligence which is a "gross  deviation from the standard of care                                                               
that a reasonable  person would [observe] in the  situation."  He                                                               
explained  that there  must be  criminal negligence  which caused                                                               
serious physical injury, which anyplace  else in the law would be                                                               
felony assault.   He continued, "Or not  causing serious physical                                                               
injury, the person  had to act with criminal  negligence or cause                                                               
property damage in amount ... "   He explained that when there is                                                               
no criminal negligence and the  person caused $10,000 in property                                                               
damage, the ensuing  investigation would "say, you  know that's a                                                               
really bummer that  happened, but I can see an  honest effort was                                                               
made  to secure  the load."    He offered  appreciation that  the                                                               
mental state  standard must be  met, and if the  committee wanted                                                               
to be  even safer it could  ratchet it up to  "recklessly," which                                                               
is a  higher standard  that is normally  associated with  class A                                                               
misdemeanors.   Possibly  the  committee  could consider  whether                                                               
criminal  negligence  would   be  a  good  one  for   a  class  B                                                               
misdemeanor, although, because there is  a mental state, it helps                                                               
justify attaching criminal behavior if  that mental state is met,                                                               
he said.   Otherwise, he  explained, all of "these  things" could                                                               
happen and  for a person who  is honestly trying to  do the right                                                               
thing, they would not "get  hit with a misdemeanor ever," because                                                               
criminal negligence would have had to be attached.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:56:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued  that on page 2, line  20, the bill                                                               
redefines  criminal negligence  for purposes  of this  law, which                                                               
says that any violation of this section ...                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  interjected  that   the  bill  does  not  redefine                                                               
criminal  negligence,   it  is  specifically  defined   under  AS                                                               
11.81.900(4) which is the existing definition.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN said  "Well,  we can  use some  different                                                               
words to talk  about what we're doing on page  2, line 20, then."                                                               
He  offered  that  the  bill   specifically  calls  out  criminal                                                               
negligence  and  specifically calls  out  any  violation of  this                                                               
section as  constituting a prima  facia violation  under criminal                                                               
negligence.   His concern, he noted,  is that the bill  will have                                                               
something  which  normally  would   not  be  considered  criminal                                                               
negligence,  i.e., trash  or litter,  and now  any conviction  of                                                               
trash or litter  bumps the person up, under subsection  (a), to a                                                               
class A  misdemeanor because "you  don't have to have  the normal                                                               
criminal  negligence definition  criteria."   Now, he  explained,                                                               
the  person just  has  to have  some  previous conviction  which,                                                               
under this section, could have been a simple $300 fine.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:58:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether criminal  negligence  ever                                                               
comes into play when no  injuries or property damage is involved.                                                               
She  referred  to  Representative Eastman's  trash  scenario  and                                                               
asked whether the trash could ever injure a person.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN clarified  that  if a  cheeseburger  wrapper hit  a                                                               
person while walking, it would  likely not cause serious physical                                                               
injury which makes it hard to  conceptualize how it "gets to this                                                               
level."  He noted that  Representative Eastman's descriptions are                                                               
inaccurate  as to  the intent  of this  bill because  a littering                                                               
violation would  not be  a prior conviction  in this  regard, the                                                               
only  prior  convictions  under  this  particular  statute  would                                                               
require a violation of failure to  secure a load, and a littering                                                               
violation would not count as prior events.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:59:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether  there are any other criminal                                                               
negligence  crimes that  are considered  prima facia  evidence of                                                               
criminal negligence  if the person  had committed  it previously,                                                               
or whether this would be the only one.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARTIN  answered that  there  are  some other  crimes  where                                                               
certain  facts are  prima facia  evidence, but  she did  not know                                                               
offhand  whether  a  prior conviction  is  prima  facia  evidence                                                               
similar to this legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:00:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX referred  to AS  28.35.251(e)(2), page  2,                                                               
lines 24-31, which read as follows:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
               (2)   second   degree    is   an   infraction                                                                    
     punishable by a fine of more than                                                                                          
                    (A)  $2,500  if   the  person  had  been                                                                    
     previously  convicted   three  or   more  times   of  a                                                                    
     violation of this section;                                                                                                 
                    (B)  $1,500  if   the  person  has  been                                                                    
     previously  convicted  twice  of a  violation  of  this                                                                    
     section;                                                                                                                   
                    (C)   $750  if   the  person   has  been                                                                    
     previously convicted  one time  of a violation  of this                                                                    
     section; or                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  noted that this  is for an  infraction and                                                               
asked  whether  this  section  is when  personal  injury  is  not                                                               
involved.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:01:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  surmised  that  it  is  only  a  class  A                                                               
misdemeanor when  someone is  hurt or  there is  serious property                                                               
damage.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered in the affirmative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  agreed with Representative LeDoux  as to the                                                               
way the bill is currently written  and noted that there is a real                                                               
misunderstanding  to  what prima  facia  is  here.   Prima  facia                                                               
simply  means  "at first  glance,  at  the first  encounter,"  he                                                               
explained,  but   it  has   to  support   subsequent  cooperative                                                               
investigation.  He  further explained that when  first looking at                                                               
the  issue, it  appears there  is  criminal negligence  due to  a                                                               
prior conviction, but  "you have to actually look to  see if that                                                               
mental state  still ... it  is assumed that  it does."   Except a                                                               
person can argue  to the court that the wrapper  flew out the bed                                                               
of their  truck even  though they had  everything bagged  up, and                                                               
criminal  negligence  should  not  apply even  though,  at  first                                                               
glance, criminal negligence applies due  to a prior violation, he                                                               
advised.   The person still has  a legal defense, it  is just now                                                               
more on  the person to show  that that alone should  not push the                                                               
person  into the  criminal negligence  state.   He  asked that  a                                                               
lawyer comment on his understanding.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:02:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX surmised  that  it changes  the burden  of                                                               
proof.   Under a  normal criminal trial,  the person  is charged,                                                               
and they do not  have to testify and they do  not have to present                                                               
a defense.  Although, she pointed  out, this language read that a                                                               
person  does not  have to  actually prove  anything for  criminal                                                               
negligence other than "somebody has done something before."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Evidence  Rule 303(b) and noted that the                                                               
rule specifically  shifts the  burden.   Therefore, if  the prima                                                               
facia  case  has been  established,  that  would then  shift  the                                                               
burden  to the  defendant  to disprove  the criminal  negligence,                                                               
which is consistent with Representative Kopp's comments.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARTIN  noted that Evidence  Rule 303  discusses preemptions,                                                               
and Evidence  Rule 303(b) discusses  prima facia  evidence, which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Rule 303. Presumptions in General in Criminal Cases.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  Prima  Facie  Evidence. A  statute  providing                                                                    
     that a fact  or group of facts is  prima facie evidence                                                                    
     of another  fact establishes  a presumption  within the                                                                    
     meaning of this rule.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:04:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to  AS 28.35.251(e), page 2, lines                                                               
21-31, which read as follows:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
          (e) Failure to confine a load in the                                                                                  
               (1)  first degree  is a  class A  misdemeanor                                                                    
     punishable as provided in AS 12.55;                                                                                        
               (2)   second   degree    is   an   infraction                                                                    
     punishable by a fine of more than                                                                                          
                    (A)  $2,500  if   the  person  had  been                                                                    
     previously  convicted   three  or   more  times   of  a                                                                    
     violation of this section;                                                                                                 
                    (B)  $1,500  if   the  person  has  been                                                                    
     previously  convicted  twice  of a  violation  of  this                                                                    
     section;                                                                                                                   
                    (C)   $750  if   the  person   has  been                                                                    
     previously convicted  one time  of a violation  of this                                                                    
     section; or                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that it  is first degree, which is                                                               
a class A misdemeanor but only  if someone is injured.  She asked                                                               
where that language is located in the bill.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN, in  response, turned  to subsection  (a), page  1,                                                               
lines 6-9, which read as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
          (a) ...  criminal negligence violates (b)  of this                                                                    
     section and, as a result of that violation,                                                                                
               (1)   causes  serious   physical  injury   to                                                                    
     another person; or                                                                                                         
               (2) damages property of  another person in an                                                                    
     amount of $1,000 or more.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:04:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked where that refers to AS 12.55.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  said that  it does  not.   Alaska Statute  12.55 is                                                               
simply  providing a  penalty provision  on page  2, lines  22-23,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          (e) Failure to confine a load in the                                                                                  
               (1)  first degree  is a  class A  misdemeanor                                                                    
     punishable as provided in AS 12.55;                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  that  the  above-mentioned provision  read                                                               
that if  a person violated the  first degree ...   He then turned                                                               
to AS 28.35.251(a) page 1, lines 4-9, which read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          (a)  A  person commits  the  crime  of failure  to                                                                    
     contain or  confine a load  in the first degree  if the                                                                    
     person, with criminal negligence,  violates (b) of this                                                                    
     section and, as a result of that violation,                                                                                
               (1)   causes  serious   physical  injury   to                                                                    
     another person; or                                                                                                         
               (2) damages property of  another person in an                                                                    
     amount of $1,000 or more.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  turned to  AS 28.35.251(a), page  1, lines  5-9 and                                                               
paraphrased  as  follows: "A  person  who  commits the  crime  of                                                               
failure to  confine --  contain or  confine a  load in  the first                                                               
degree if the person, with  criminal negligence, violates (b) ...                                                               
and  then  causes the  injury  or  the  property damage."    That                                                               
language gives  the classification  of the  first-degree offense,                                                               
he explained.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:05:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  asked  whether  there  must  be  criminal                                                               
negligence as to second-degree also.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN answered, "No," that is a strict liability offense.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:05:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked where that language is located.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  answered  that  the language  is  found  under  AS                                                               
28.35.251(b) page 1, lines 10-12, which read as follows:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  A person  commits the  offense of  failure to                                                                    
     contain or confine  a load in the second  degree if the                                                                    
     person  drives or  moves a  motor vehicle  located with                                                                    
     any material on a highway unless                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:06:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  commented that given the  mens rea                                                               
that Representative Kopp noted,  adjusting criminal negligence to                                                               
recklessness is more consistent  with other class A misdemeanors.                                                               
He  asked the  sponsor whether  a  class B  misdemeanor would  be                                                               
amendable  given the  committee's  current  discussion and  noted                                                               
that the  property damage  and the  $2,000 of  vehicular property                                                               
damage pieces  catch him.   He commented  that there  is probably                                                               
$10,000 worth  of property damage  on his Jeep  currently because                                                               
he has never taken it into a shop  to deal with it, which is five                                                               
class  A misdemeanors.   He  said  he is  uncomfortable with  the                                                               
language  making  it  a  class A  misdemeanor,  and  the  causing                                                               
serious  physical  injury  to another  person  piece  feels  more                                                               
appropriate.   He suggested potentially separating  out those two                                                               
issues.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:08:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   MILLETT   remarked    that   she   agrees   with                                                               
Representative  Eastman  because in  correlating  classifications                                                               
for a class  A misdemeanor and class B  misdemeanor with criminal                                                               
negligence  and recklessness,  the committee  needs some  time to                                                               
show equity  in class  A misdemeanors  and class  B misdemeanors.                                                               
While she  understands the intent,  she said she  believes "we're                                                               
going  overboard" with  class  A misdemeanors  when  it comes  to                                                               
"what you're  trying to  do," because it  has progression  in it,                                                               
and she thought a comparative would be helpful.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that a  comparative may be helpful, except                                                               
this  legislation has  both together  in a  first-degree offense.                                                               
It may  be that with  a class  A misdemeanor, even  with criminal                                                               
negligence for  serious physical injury, this  committee would be                                                               
comfortable  with a  class A  misdemeanor  when serious  physical                                                               
injury is  involved but feels differently  about property damage.                                                               
Therefore, possibly  the direction to move  into is to make  it a                                                               
class  B  misdemeanor  as  to  property damage,  and  a  class  A                                                               
misdemeanor  when   serious  physical  injury  is   involved,  he                                                               
suggested.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:09:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  restated that the class  A misdemeanor is                                                               
probably more  than is necessary in  this type of situation.   He                                                               
then  noted testimony  wherein someone  advised that  they had  a                                                               
secured load  involving snow and ice,  and when the snow  and ice                                                               
melted  and  a rock  fell,  it  became  an  unsecured load.    He                                                               
suggested that the committee go back  to the definition of a load                                                               
to make  certain it  is defined  consistent with  the committee's                                                               
discussions.  It  is not his belief, he offered,  that any number                                                               
of prosecutions under  these types of situations  would train the                                                               
average member  of the  public dealing  with snow,  ice, pebbles,                                                               
and so  forth, on their  cars.  He  opined that the  public would                                                               
not get the message based on  stiffer penalties even in the class                                                               
B  misdemeanor category.   He  related that  he is  uncomfortable                                                               
with   criminalizing  things   that  the   committee  would   not                                                               
necessarily think  of as criminal  activity when,  usually, there                                                               
is  no  criminal  intent.    He   said  he  wants  to  shift  the                                                               
conversation  outside of  the criminal  side and  make sure  that                                                               
those kinds  of situations and  that type of behavior  is treated                                                               
more  normally  under civil  sanctions.    In the  event  someone                                                               
caused damage, they  could be taken to court in  order to recover                                                               
those damages under the normal  process.  He questioned whether a                                                               
criminal conviction would  help someone "be made  well" because a                                                               
rock hit their  windshield.  No matter the amount  of training or                                                               
how narrowly these types of  provisions are tailored, "that stuff                                                               
is  still  going to  happen"  and  in  some  cases, maybe  it  is                                                               
criminally negligent,  but in a lot  of cases it probably  is not                                                               
criminally negligent.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:13:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP clarified  for  Representative Eastman  that                                                               
the  criminal offense  would never  apply unless  the person  had                                                               
already demonstrated  criminal negligence.  The  person must meet                                                               
the criminal  negligence standard, otherwise the  person will not                                                               
ever face  a criminal [charge], he  explained.  In the  event the                                                               
person  acted   with  criminal  negligence  and   caused  serious                                                               
physical  injury as  a result  of failing  to secure  their load,                                                               
that  person   should  be  in   criminal  territory.     Criminal                                                               
negligence, he reiterated, is a  gross standard of deviation from                                                               
the  care  a  reasonable  person  would  exercise  in  that  same                                                               
circumstance, and  if the issue  is property damage  the criminal                                                               
negligence applies.  In the event  the person was not acting with                                                               
criminal negligence,  it does  not matter if  a person  wipes out                                                               
another  person's   entire  $45,000   pickup,  if   the  accident                                                               
investigation showed  that it was  an accident.   By the  way, he                                                               
advised, if  the person was  criminally negligent there  are many                                                               
other statutes under  which the person could be  charged, such as                                                               
vehicular    assault,    vehicular   homicide    with    reckless                                                               
endangerment,  and   so  forth.    He   offered  appreciation  to                                                               
Representative  Eastman   for  his  statement  about   not  over-                                                               
criminalizing things,  and he appreciates the  differentiation in                                                               
Representative  Eastman's mind,  depending  on the  issue.   But,                                                               
again, having the mental state  here "we're protected" on getting                                                               
too far astray on that issue, he remarked.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN referred  to the question of  civil liability versus                                                               
criminal liability  and noted  that one of  the ways  "we reflect                                                               
our"  society's  values  is  when it  is  believed  that  certain                                                               
conduct is so  egregious it should be criminalized.   That action                                                               
not only reflects our values  but it also reflects an expectation                                                               
on  the part  of the  public that  is very  different than  civil                                                               
liability.   And, he noted that  when he listened to  Kelly Roy's                                                               
testimony about what she experienced  when someone did not secure                                                               
their  load,  and  the  testimony  from Robin  Abel  as  to  what                                                               
happened to her daughter when  someone did not secure their load,                                                               
he  does not  believe  this  issue belongs  solely  in civil  law                                                               
territory.   Criminal  sanctions  are appropriate,  particularly,                                                               
when  serious physical  injury occurs  because someone  failed to                                                               
secure  their  load,  and  that   person  should  be  looking  at                                                               
potential  criminal sanctions.   He  pointed out  that the  1,392                                                               
unsecured loads at the Anchorage  Solid Waste Services shows that                                                               
something  needs to  change and  it will  not change  solely with                                                               
civil  liability.   The question  about  serious physical  injury                                                               
versus property  damage is appropriate  for the committee  to try                                                               
to  determine  the parameters,  but  he  does not  believe  civil                                                               
liability is  enough to express  society's views in terms  of the                                                               
importance of securing loads, he stressed.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[HB 259 was held over.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:17:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 330
HB330 Proposed Amendment 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 330
HB259 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver L 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/5/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 ver M 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Sponsor Statement ver L 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Sectional Analysis ver L 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Summary of Changes ver M to L 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Additional Document-Leg. Research Report 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Supporting Document-Alaska Governor's Proclamation-Secure Your Load Day 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Supporting Document-Anchorage Mayoral Proclamation-Secure Your Load Day 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Supporting Document-Anchorage Municipal Assembly Resolution-Secure Your Load Day 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Supporting Document-Mat-Su Mayoral Proclamation-Secure Your Load Day 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Supporting Document-Unsecured Load Incident Articles-Secure Your Load Day 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259
HB259 Fiscal Note DOT-MSCVE 2.23.18.pdf HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM
HB 259