02/20/2008 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR32 | |
| HB331 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2008
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Supporting open and free competition within the broadcasting
industry.
- MOVED HJR 32 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle insurance, license
suspensions, mandatory impoundments of vehicles used in certain
offenses, and notices relating to motor vehicles and driver's
licenses."
- MOVED CSHB 331(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 32
SHORT TITLE: BROADCASTING INDUSTRY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) L&C
02/20/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLES:INS/LICENSES/IMPOUNDMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ROSES
01/18/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/08 (H) L&C, JUD
02/20/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the resolution and answered
questions as prime sponsor of HJR 32.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
to Representative Bob Roses, Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 331 on behalf of the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as cosponsor of HB 331.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 331.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:06:26 PM. Representatives
Neuman, Gatto, Buch, and Olson were present at the call to
order. Representatives LeDoux, Ramras, and Gardner arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HJR 32-BROADCASTING INDUSTRY
3:06:56 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Supporting open and free
competition within the broadcasting industry.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, explained that HJR 32 supports robust and competitive
airwaves by opposing federal action that would reverse or
inhibit open and free competition within the broadcasting
industry. [The fairness doctrine is a policy of the United
States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which was passed
by Congress in 1987, but vetoed by President Reagan.] Since the
lifting of what is "mislabeled" as the "fairness doctrine," the
public has had unfiltered publicly accessible airwaves. [In
1987, when the courts declared that the doctrine was not
mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to enforce it, the
FCC dissolved the doctrine.] While Representative Stoltze
suggested he does not always agree with what is broadcast on the
airwaves, he supports open, free airwaves.
3:09:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to what brought this matter to
Representative Stoltze's attention.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that ongoing legislation in
Congress would reenact the fairness doctrine and curb open
unfiltered talk radio. In further response to Representative
Neuman, Representative Stoltze explained that under the fairness
doctrine, if you put forth one controversial idea, you must
provide equal air time for a competing idea.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to Representative Neuman,
answered that this resolution is offered as a courtesy to the
federal delegation and to allow all ideas to enter the
marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to Representative Neuman,
offered to find out whether HJR 32 would affect public radio.
3:12:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO applauded the fact that the resolution is
directed only to the Alaska delegation and not the entire
Congress. He inquired as to whether HJR 32 would affect talk
show hosts who are also legislators by requiring them to provide
equal air time to their opponents.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that the resolution supports
equal time for competing ideas so the station would probably air
music if air time was not marketplace viable.
3:15:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to Representative Buch,
answered that the resolution does not condemn an act, but
strongly discourages passage of an act.
3:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to a page 2 of a handout in the
committee packet, titled "CNSNews.Com, Cybercast News Service"
which read: "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the
doctrine did not violate the First Amendment because the
airwaves belonged to the public and thus could face government
regulation to which print media were not subjected." He
inquired as to whether the resolution affects what has already
been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE conveyed that the U.S. Supreme Court
interpreted that it was legal to invoke the Fairness Doctrine,
but it did not mandate it. Instead, an administrative decision
was issued in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine does not violate the
first amendment, but it violates the principle of the free
marketplace, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to a committee handout labeled,
"MSNBC.com" which read: "According to researchers, more than 85
percent of talk-radio programming leans to the right - at least
by the researchers' definition." He voiced that if that were
the case, it would seem that the information currently being
broadcast is one sided by 85 percent. In essence, the U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed that the Fairness Doctrine does not
violate the first amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE pointed out that it would not be hard to
search for another quote to demonstrate that the three major
network stations also broadcast information that is
predominately slanted in another way. He offered that the
packet includes pro and con comments on the Fairness Doctrine so
the committee members will have a wide spectrum of ideas to
consider. You cannot force people to listen to specific
programs, he opined. Thus, he prefers to support the concept of
the marketplace ultimately deciding what programs are viable.
3:20:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether the Fairness
Doctrine was repealed in 1987 and is not currently in effect.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE agreed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX further inquired as to the effect of
reinstating the Fairness Doctrine on radio stations in Anchorage
and how it would affect political candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that the principle is based on
the premise that anyone could demand equal time. If the
Fairness Doctrine is reinstated the result would be that the
format of programs such as those on talk radio would disappear
since people would not want to give equal time to their
opponents, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to Representative LeDoux,
explained that the time must be made available as a public
service.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX further inquired if the opponent would be
required to pay for the equal time.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that the equal time would be
provided as a public service. He offered that lifting the
Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan's administration removed
an artificial barrier which allowed talk radio to blossom. He
explained that programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and other
hosted talk radio programs did not exist prior to the lift of
the Fairness Doctrine, since stations were required to provide
free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that
were broadcast. Talk radio programs cropped up because stations
could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present
opposing views, he opined. Therefore, while talk radio shows
were not prohibited, these programs didn't happen due to the
natural restrictions in the marketplace.
3:24:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that broadcasting companies
are for-profit businesses. He inquired as to whether the state
or any government has the right to restrict free enterprise
businesses on news media they can broadcast.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE explained that is exactly his premise for
introducing HJR 32. He noted that he has heard most of the
committee members on talk radio since Alaska radio stations are
open, accessible, and air competing ideas. Further, Alaska
radio stations want to keep their listeners, so stations tend to
internally balance views, he opined.
3:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that perhaps entities such as
universities, newspapers, and art museums should also be
required to divide evenly between viewpoints. If government is
going to control society, perhaps it should control all of
society, or else none at all.
3:27:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to Representative LeDoux,
replied regulations govern what can be broadcast on airwaves.
This resolution is limited to open and free access of airwaves
and does not address program content or any laws against
pornography.
3:31:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 32.
3:31:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HJR 32 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected.
3:31:26 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, LeDoux,
Ramras, Gardner, Neuman, and Olson voted in favor of moving HJR
32 from committee. Representative Buch voted against it.
Therefore, HJR 32 was reported out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:32 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.
HB 331-MOTOR VEHICLES:INS/LICENSES/IMPOUNDMENTS
3:35:06 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 331, "An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle
insurance, license suspensions, mandatory impoundments of
vehicles used in certain offenses, and notices relating to motor
vehicles and driver's licenses."
3:35:25 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff to Representative Bob Roses, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 331 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Bob Roses. She explained that HB 331
would address a problem in the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
statutes with respect to the address of record. Currently if
someone is involved in a motor vehicle accident but does not
have proof of liability insurance, the law enforcement officer
provides the driver with a form to fill out and submit to the
DMV with proof of liability insurance. The DMV currently mails
any notice to the driver's address of record. When the driver's
address has changed, the mail is often returned as undeliverable
and the party never receives the notice. If that happens, the
division does not have proof of mandatory insurance and
subsequently suspends the driver's license. Under HB 331, the
DMV would be required to send the notice to the driver's last
known address, not to the address of record. This bill would
also change failure to notify the DMV of address changes from a
misdemeanor to a violation; would institute a class B
misdemeanor for driving without liability insurance, punishable
by a minimum fine of $500; and would allow law enforcement to
impound vehicles for certain crimes such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.
3:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to proposed AS 28.05.071 of HB
331. He inquired as to whether the $300 fine for not notifying
the DMV of an address change is set too high. He further
inquired as to the number of drivers that do not have proof of
insurance in the vehicle at the time of an accident.
MS. KOENEMAN stated that HB 331 provides a defense if the person
has insurance and provides proof of insurance to the court.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern that the driver would
incur expenses in order to appear in court. He inquired as to
whether it would be easier for the driver to provide the proof
of insurance directly to the DMV.
MS. KOENEMAN offered that when a driver provides proof of
insurance with his insurance card at the time of an accident
that does not necessarily prove that the driver has insurance
since the policy may have lapsed. Until the DMV contacts the
insurance company, there is no way to know for certain that the
driver has maintained the insurance policy.
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Representative Neuman, explained
that currently the DMV checks insurance at the time of renewal.
However, the policy may have lapsed at the time of the accident
so requiring that the proof of insurance upon renewal of a
driver's license or for vehicle registration would not remedy
the problem.
3:42:49 PM
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Representative Gardner, related
that currently DMV maintains an address of record. However,
failure to notify the DMV within 30 days of moving would result
in a fine under HB 331.
3:43:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that HB 331 is written in a
confusing or convoluted manner. She related that Section 2
provides an affirmative defense that the party provides proof of
insurance to the court. She inquired as to whether there was
some other way to provide proof of insurance.
3:44:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as cosponsor,
offered that HB 331 corrects frustrating parts of the motor
vehicle law. Currently, if a person drives without liability
insurance it is a crime, which it should be, he opined.
However, a person with valid insurance can be charged if he/she
cannot provide proof of insurance. If that happens, the driver
currently would provide proof during his/her court appearance.
Proposed Section 2 of HB 331 removes the burden of a court
appearance by allowing the party to either provide proof to the
DMV or the law enforcement officer at the time of the accident.
Not only is it burdensome to appear at the court hearing, but
while the case is pending, the driver "has the matter hanging
over his/her head." Under HB 331, the driver would know that
once he/she provides proof to the court, since the outcome will
be that the district attorney will drop the case. He reiterated
that once the DMV sends a notice to the address of record
requesting that the driver provide proof of insurance and the
driver is non-responsive, the DMV will suspend the person's
driver's license. In the event that the driver is subsequently
stopped by a police officer, either routinely or due to an
accident, the driver would be charged with driving with a
suspended or revoked license, which is a crime. Under HB 331,
the penalty for failure to maintain a current address would
change from a class B misdemeanor to an infraction punishable by
a fine of up to $300. He offered that the committee may wish to
consider removing the fine. He offered that the only reason to
impose a fine is to provide DMV with an incentive for people to
keep their address current.
3:47:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX argued that proposed Section 2 of HB 331
may not provide relief to the driver, since it requires an
affirmative defense. Therefore, the driver must still go to
court to provide proof of insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that under current statute, a
person who drives without a license commits a crime, even though
the driver's license was revoked for lack of proof of liability
insurance; and even though the driver had maintained liability
insurance. He offered that HB 331 would provide a valid
affirmative defense.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the statutory language
seems overly complicated.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that HB 331 is complex. He
noted that the DMV currently is aware of the loophole, that the
language contained in the bill passed the body last year in HB
184, sponsored by Representative Roses, although the provision
was later removed in the other body. Thus, HB 184 passed the
legislature without the driver's address of record issue
addressed.
3:48:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that driving without proof of
liability insurance is a six point deduction on a person's
record. He inquired as to the total points allowed before the
DMV would suspend a person's license.
MS. KOENEMAN offered to provide the driver's license point
system.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern that the current process
complicates the process for driver who was legitimately insured.
3:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged the importance of requiring
liability insurance. She related concern that the driver would
lose six points on his/her license for simply not having proof
of liability insurance. She inquired as to the reason that the
DMV would use the old address to provide notification since the
officer obtained updated address information at the time of the
accident or traffic stop. She suggested that DMV use the most
current address as the driver's address of record.
3:52:12 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Director's Office, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), began by
answering questions previously raised. She stated that a driver
is allowed 12 points in one year or 18 points in 24 months
before a license is suspended. However, she noted that points
are placed on the driver's record upon conviction. She noted
that a judge also has the authority to dismiss a violation. The
DMV supports the flexibility to send notices to the address of
record or to an address acquired at the time of an accident.
She estimated that 10 percent of mail that DMV sends to the
driver's address of record is undeliverable. She stressed that
the DMV desires to notify parties of the DMV's requirements.
3:53:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained concern that Section 2 of HB
331 seems convoluted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that the current law is also
complex. He explained that under the bill, proposed subsection
(d) allows for an affirmative defense, but he/she still has to
prove it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the driver has the burden
of proof, which means that person must appear in court to
present an affirmative defense.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated an earlier scenario in which a
driver cannot provide proof of his/her liability insurance. The
DMV would mail a notice to the driver's address of record
requesting proof of liability insurance. The form is
undeliverable so the DMV revokes his/her license. The person
continues to drive since he/she is unaware of the administrative
revocation. The driver gets pulled over again and is
subsequently arrested for driving without a license. The only
recourse the driver has is to go to court and hope that the
district attorney will not prosecute the case. Meanwhile,
he/she cannot drive and has no assurance that the matter will be
appropriately handled in court. This bill would provide the
driver with an affirmative defense.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative LeDoux,
pointed out that he has known several people who have undergone
the stress of being arrested, posting bail, and having a
criminal charge pending until the court date. In further
response to Representative LeDoux, Representative Gara explained
that under HB 331, the driver has the knowledge that he/she has
a legitimate defense that is very easy to prove.
3:58:37 PM
MS. BREWSTER, in response to Representative Gardner, answered
that while the driver must show proof of insurance in court,
cases such as the one described by Representative Gara are
ultimately dismissed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether a person would be
cited for not having proof of insurance in his/her vehicle.
MS. BREWSTER answered that the driver would be cited for failure
to provide insurance, but that the points would not be applied
to the driver's record unless the driver was actually convicted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the issue of whether the
driver has proof of insurance in the car is not addressed in
bill. He suggested a possible solution might be for DMV to
offer a waiver once the party provides the proof of liability
insurance.
4:01:02 PM
MS. BREWSTER, in response to Chair Olson, answered that the DMV
supports proposed Section 4 of HB 331, which addresses the
ability of the division to send notification to the current
address on file, or the address given on the accident report.
However, the division is neutral on other sections of HB 331.
4:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether the driver who does
not send in the paperwork would be considered a criminal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained the process again. He emphasized
that the process is not fixable under current law, which is the
reason that proposed Sections 2 and 4 are important. He noted
that the requirement for liability insurance is currently
mandatory and HB 331 does not affect insurance. Driving without
liability insurance currently is a class B misdemeanor,
punishable by fine of as little as zero dollars. Proposed
Section 3 would impose a minimum fine of $500 as a disincentive
for people to drive without liability insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed support for some sections of the
bill.
4:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER spoke against proposed Section 1. She
made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 as follows:
On page 1, lines 5-7,
Delete Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether DMV could send out
the form to both the address of record and the address provided
to the law enforcement officer at the time of the accident.
MS. BREWSTER acknowledged that DMV does receive all accident
reports. However, the cost to mail certified letters to a
driver is $4 per letter. In further response to Representative
LeDoux, Ms. Brewster said she was not aware of any law that
would prevent the division from mailing letters to additional
addresses, but the law only specifies notices be sent to the
address of record. Given the number of accident reports, the
DMV would incur substantial costs to mail out two notices to
each driver, she surmised.
4:08:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew her motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern that everyone who changes
residence must remember to notify the DMV of their address
change.
4:10:18 PM
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Representative Neuman, noted
subsection (a) which read:
A person who has applied for or been issued a
certificate, registration, title, license, permit or
other form under this title shall notify the
appropriate department in writing of the change of
name or address within 30 days ...
MS. KOENEMAN added that subsection (b) adds the penalty
provision.
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Representative Neuman, referred to
on page 2, lines 14-15 of HB 331, and offered that AS 28.33.030
relates to controlled substances, AS 28.33.031 refers to the
failure to submit to breathalyzer, AS 28.35.030 and AS 28.35.032
refers to refusal to submit to chemical testing.
4:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that when a penalty provision is not
set by statute, the penalty automatically defaults to a class B
misdemeanor. Thus, proposed AS 28.15.071(b) was added to HB 331
to indicate that the infraction is punishable only by a fine.
He offered that the committee might consider reducing the fine
"not to exceed $50" which would mean that the fine could also be
zero. He further explained that Section 5 was added to the bill
since impoundment is not automatic in driving while under the
influence crimes. An owner who loaned their car to someone who
later drives while under the influence of alcohol while using
the loaned vehicle, could pay the impound fees to obtain his/her
car.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern with proposed Section 5.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled the discussion during the action
last session on the previous bill, HB 184. She recollected the
rationale used and the sponsor's intent to not only take the
driver off the road, but to also remove the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Gatto, agreed
that rental cars would be affected by the impound provision of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that drivers sign an
agreement at the time they rent a car. Thus, a car rental
agency would apply any additional costs incurred during the
rental directly on the driver's credit card.
4:17:06 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 331.
4:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER made a motion to adopt new Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows:
On page 1, line 7
Delete "$300"
Insert "$25"
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained new Conceptual Amendment 1.
She offered that someone who fails to notify the DMV of his/her
current residential address would only be subject to a fine of
$25.
4:17:47 PM
CHAIR OLSON objected. He warned members that reducing the fine
would weaken the need for people to keep their address current
with the DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that most people are not aware
of the need to notify DMV of their address change.
4:18:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, LeDoux,
Buch, Gardner, and Neuman voted in favor of new Conceptual
Amendment 1. Representatives Ramras and Olson voted against it.
Therefore, new Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of
5-2.
4:19:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
On page 2, lines 12-20,
Delete Section 5
4:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected.
4:20:40 PM
MS. KOENEMAN expressed concern about impounding another person's
car, although she acknowledged it is up to the committee to
decide.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that Representative Seaton
wanted law enforcement officers to have the authority to impound
vehicles for certain crimes. However, the owner could have the
vehicle returned.
4:22:11 PM
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to Representative LeDoux, reminded
members that Representative Gara testified that the language
contained in Section 5 of HB 331 was added as a floor amendment
to HB 184 in 2007, but the bill was later amended in the other
body and the language was removed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted his ambivalence as to whether or not
to retain proposed Section 5 of HB 331, but he assured members
that Representative Seaton supports proposed Section 5.
4:23:42 PM
CHAIR OLSON offered that he supports Conceptual Amendment 2 on
the basis that Representative Seaton could work with the sponsor
of the bill prior to the next committee of referral to determine
whether the additional language is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew her objection.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:24:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed concern that the title was too
broad since two items had been deleted, so portions of the title
no longer apply. This bill does not relate to changes of
mandatory motor vehicle insurance, so "mandatory" could be
deleted, he suggested. He further noted that this bill relates
to motor vehicle insurance, but that the last portion, which
read, "Notices relating to motor vehicles and drivers' licenses"
should be narrowed to read, "notices relating to motor vehicles
and notices relating to drivers' licenses".
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3 which is a title change to incorporate the changes
Representative Gara suggested. The new title under Conceptual
Amendment 3, would read:
An Act relating to motor vehicle insurance, license
suspensions, and notices relating to motor vehicles
and notices relating to driver's licenses.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HB 331, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 331(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:26:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|