01/30/2008 01:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (high Risk Health Pool) Overview | |
| HB303 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2008
1:03 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
Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (High-Risk
Health Pool) Overview
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 303
"An Act relating to marine products and motorized recreational
products; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 303(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 303
SHORT TITLE: MARINE & MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) L&C
01/30/08 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Anchorage Office
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced speakers during the overview of
the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance (High Risk Health
Pool).
CECIL BYKERK, Executive Director
Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association
Omaha, Nebraska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association (High-Risk Health Pool) overview and
answered questions.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
to Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented changes to HB 303 and answered
question during the discussion of HB 303.
DUDLEY BENESCH, Board Member
Alaska Marine Dealers Association;
Partner, Alaska Mining and Diving Supply
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 303 and answered
questions.
CRAIG COMPEAU, Owner
Compeau's Marine
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions.
KATHY VAN KLEEK, Senior Vice-President
Government Relations
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA)
Irvine, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 303 and
answered questions.
DAVID DICKERSON, Director
State Government Relations
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 303.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 303.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03:57 PM. Representatives Buch,
Gardner, Neuman, and Olson were present at the call to order.
Representatives Ledoux, Gatto, and Ramras arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (High Risk
Health Pool) Overview
1:04:17 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance
Association (High Risk Health Pool).
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Anchorage Office,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), introduced Cecil Bykerk, President, Bykerk Consulting,
who is the Executive Director of the Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association, and two board members, Brian Angel,
American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, and Shawn
Pollock, Vice President, Government and Industry, Physician
Mutual, but noted that both board members represent the Alaska
Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ACHIA)today.
1:05:10 PM
CECIL BYKERK, Executive Director, Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association, gave an overview of the Alaska
Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ACHIA). He related
that his involvement with ACHIA began as a board member of ACHIA
from its inception in [1993]. He noted that he became the
executive director of ACHIA in 2004.
1:07:17 PM
MR. BYKERK, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, clarified that since 1993, ACHIA has grown to serve
about 500 policyholders. He further noted that ACHIA has served
over 1,700 people since 1993, and that in the late 1990s ACHIA
was recognized as the federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability (HIPPA) alternative, so people coming out of
government coverage would be eligible for coverage under ACHIA.
Since 1993, ACHIA has paid out over $61 million in claims, and
policyholders have paid over $23 million in premium. The
association, ACHIA, provides health insurance coverage for those
people who are uninsurable. He specified that the $40 million
shortfall is recovered primarily from assessments by the
insurance companies of the people who have individual and small
group coverage. Premiums are based on the standard market rate,
and are marked up at approximately 40 percent above market
rates. He referred to a pie chart on a handout, provided in
committee member packets, labeled, "Alaska Comprehensive Health
Insurance Association "ACHIA" that shows that [35 percent] of
AHCHIA's funding is obtained from premiums, and [61 percent] is
obtained from assessments. He offered that this is a
significant subsidy for high-risk insurance policyholders, but
coverage is made available to a segment of the public that is
normally uninsurable. He opined that this is a very important
program and the feedback from policyholders given at ACHIA's
annual meeting is heartwarming to hear.
1:10:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER in an effort to follow the figures given,
asked who pays the balance between the $23 million in premiums
and the $41.2 million in benefits, and noted that $2 million was
paid by federal grants.
MR. BYKERK referred to his handout and answered that that the
shortfall, the assessments collected column, represents fees
paid by assessing medical insurance companies who do business in
Alaska. He said the assessments are [paid by] major medical
insurance, Medicare Medigap (Supplemental Insurance), and health
insurance, including stop-loss coverage that covers health care
expenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered that insurance companies doing
business in Alaska must need to make extra money in order to
stay in business.
MR. BYKERK clarified that in some cases the companies absorb it,
or add a specific surcharge to their premium to pay the
assessment, but in general the assessments range from 1 percent
to a maximum of approximately 1.4 percent of the premium. So,
he opined, the assessment charged is not a huge burden, but it
certainly does impact insurance company costs. He noted that
insurance companies were helped when the legislature passed a
bill that authorizes insurers to offset half of the assessments
against the premium taxes they pay to the State of Alaska. The
2007 premium taxes and assessments, with a one-year lag time,
were assessed by ACHIA for the first time in 2008, and can
reduce insurance companies' premium tax obligations to the state
by 50 percent. He noted that the reimbursement is a general
fund revenue source because the premium taxes paid to ACHIA are
deposited to the general fund.
1:14:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that the cost
of the 50 percent premium of the high-risk insurance
policyholder is paid by the state, and 50 percent is paid by the
insurance company.
MR. BYKERK opined there is no doubt that the cost of the premium
assessment is passed on to the consumer. He offered that there
are 35 states with some form of a high-risk pool. He added that
about two-thirds of the states fund the pool through general
fund revenue, and that some states make direct appropriations,
but others provide premium tax offsets. He offered to provide
committee members a copy of an annual publication by the
National Association of High-Risk Pools, for those interested in
how other states are doing with respect to funding high-risk
insurance pools and the benefits of high-risk pool insurance.
He added that the benefits provided by ACHIA to its
policyholders are first rate benefits, comparable to what is
available in the individual marketplace.
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether the assessments to insurance
companies were on a pro rata basis.
MR. BYKERK responded yes. He explained the process ACHIA uses
to calculate the individual premium assessment paid by insurance
companies is derived by obtaining a list of providers from the
Division of Insurance then dividing the total premium dollars by
the total premium assessments paid, and arriving at the
percentage applicable to each insurance company. He also
expressed his appreciation for the help and support from the
Division of Insurance to ACHIA.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the insurance being
discussed pertains only to the high-risk insurance pool.
1:17:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether the $41 million
represented the total insurance assessment.
MR. BYKERK clarified that $41 million is the amount that has
been assessed from inception until now, and of that one-third
has been paid for premiums and two-thirds has been paid for
assessments. He offered that ACHIA believes this shows that the
program is working because people are enrolled in coverage, and
pay a portion of their premiums. He explained that the high-
risk group is helped because insurers cannot price high-risk
insurance that is affordable, and is, in fact, the reason why
this segment of the public is considered uninsurable.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to which companies are assessed.
MR. BYKERK answered that the Division of Insurance tabulates the
premiums that include all health insurance premium policies and
hospital indemnity policies, but does not include automobile
insurance, disability income insurance, long-term care, workers'
compensation, or self-funded plans such as the State of Alaska,
which is a fully self-funded insurance plan.
MR. BYKERK, in response to a comment, noted that legislators
should have received a copy of the 2006 ACHIA annual report,
which includes the specific companies assessed and the
percentage of the gross premiums they pay.
1:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a person who is uninsured
who learns he/she has cancer would qualify for the high-risk
pool insurance.
MR. BYKERK said that under the program, an applicant is eligible
if they apply, pay the premium, is under the age of 65, is not
be eligible for other insurance coverage, and can prove
declination from an insurance carrier, except that there is a
list of illnesses for which the person does not need to show a
declination. He noted there is a six-month waiver for a pre-
existing condition, which is waived if the party comes in under
HIPPA, or the federal employees' program, and is also waived if
the person's insurance was canceled, which generally only occurs
when a carrier leaves the state.
1:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that it seems as if the
high-risk insurance is for people who have catastrophic
illnesses and is not for day-to-day coverage. She added that it
almost seems as if one could make a decision to go without
insurance, but could then come under the state program for a
catastrophic event.
MR. BYKERK answered that the purpose of the pre-existing
condition waiver is to encourage people to apply. He explained
the general principal is that insurance only works when people
pay premiums, but do not collect on insurance claims. He said
if the pre-existing condition waiver period did not exist,
people would only apply when they contracted a catastrophic
illness, and thus could avoid paying the premiums. He related
an instance under ACHIA in which gastric bypass surgery patients
would pay the premiums for six months to have the costly surgery
covered, then drop the policy and no longer pay the premiums.
He said that policies range from those with a $1,000 deductible
to those with a $15,000 deductible with a considerably reduced
premium and offered that it is not uncommon for people to
purchase catastrophic coverage with a $10,000 deductible policy,
because it is worthwhile just to have the coverage when
something major happens.
1:26:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether there are caps for
coverage.
MR. BYKERK answered that ACHIA originally had a $1 million
maximum payment, although it is now commonplace to have $3, $5,
or $10 million caps. He said that two years ago ACHIA
discovered a policyholder was pushing his/her $1 million maximum
so the ACHIA board met and raised the maximum payable to $2
million. He offered that in this way, ACHIA can manage its
overall risk, but he noted that it would be difficult for ACHIA
if it received an $8 million claim in one year.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether ACHIA has had anyone exceed
the maximum.
MR. BYKERK answered that when a person gets to the point of
reaching his/her maximum benefit there is no other place for
that person to go except to the federal government for relief,
although he noted that ACHIA has not yet had such a case.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether ACHIA covers mental
health benefits.
MR. BYKERK answered that ACHIA does cover mental health, but
there is an internal maximum limitation of $4,000.
1:29:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.
HB 303-MARINE & MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS
1:31:48 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 303, "An Act relating to marine products and
motorized recreational products; and providing for an effective
date."[Before the committee was HB 303.]
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH made a motion to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 303, Version 25-LS1183\C, Bannister,
1/29/08 [as the work draft]. There being no objection, Version
C was before the committee.
1:32:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, speaking as the sponsor, explained that
he represents House District 15 and that marine outboard and
snowmobile dealerships approached him to introduce HB 303 in
order to reduce the cost of warranty work, [particularly] in
rural Alaska, and to keep costs more in line [with the costs for
warranty work in the] automotive industry. He opined that HB
303 will create a better business climate. Although there are a
few changes contained in the committee substitute, there was not
any substantial change to the bill, he noted.
1:33:38 PM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska
State Legislature, characterized the changes in the
committee substitute as primarily clean-up language. He
explained that proposed AS 45.27.410 (c), has been
restructured to reflect that a dealer must return the
defective product prior to receiving an identical product
that is not defective, and that proposed AS 45.27.450 was
clarified by inserting the language "cost as a handling
fee" to reflect the specific cost of the handling fee by
the dealer. Proposed AS 45.27.610(b) was changed to
clarify the date and to decrease the timeframe from 3
months to 30 days, and thus proposed AS 45.27.610(b) now
reads:
If an authorized dealer retains a product part for at
least 30 days after the warranty claim is filed, the
authorized dealer is not liable to a manufacturer or
distributor for failing to retain the product part for
a longer time.
MR. SHATTUCK went on to explain that the next few changes
[relate to] trailers. Under proposed AS 45.27.990,
paragraph (2) the language, "and includes a trailer for an
all-terrain vehicle" was stricken to eliminate trailers
from the definition of an all-terrain vehicle because DMV
had some issues with including trailers, In proposed AS
45.27.990 paragraph (14), the reference to a watercraft
trailer was stricken. In proposed AS 45.27.990, paragraph
(15), the reference to trailer was stricken. All of
proposed AS 45.27.990, paragraph (18) which defines
"trailer" was stricken. These changes require renumbering
the remaining paragraphs in the proposed section. He noted
that the final change removes proposed Section 7 because
the drafter felt that the length of time of the agreement
between the dealer and manufacturer and the enactment date
of HB 303 posed some coordination problems.
1:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered that he has a good friend who would
be a beneficiary of HB 303 and asked for clarification on the
enforcement provision of this proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN deferred to others that will testify, but
said that he thought [the bill] made it possible for industry to
have the opportunity [for] enforcement.
MR. SHATTUCK suggested that one section of HB 303 addresses
enforcement.
1:39:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her belief that, in general, that
businesses operate in the free market and enter into distributor
or manufacturer's agreements, and that the state typically only
intervenes in cases that pertain to health care, safety issues,
or fraud. She offered her understanding of the sponsor's
concern that in rural Alaska there are not many places to
purchase equipment or to get warranty work done, but referred to
proposed AS 45.27.010, as follows:
A manufacturer or distributor may not coerce or
attempt to coerce an authorized dealer to enter into
an agreement with the manufacturer or distributor.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then inquired as to how that
provision would apply differently in Alaska than [it does]
in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that businesses
have gone to industry for years to ask for changes, however,
they have not had success in doing so. He stated HB 303 would
force changes in the relationship between manufacturers and
dealers, similar to what has happened with the automotive
industry [in which dealers and manufacturer's have] more of a
partnership. He opined that currently the large manufacturer
can tell the distributor what it must do in order to be able to
carry its brand of motor or snowmobile.
1:42:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding wholesale distributor and
manufacturer relationships, opined that each one is trying to
obtain the benefit, but the manufacturer always sets the terms
of the agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN clarified that HB 303 categorizes the
manufacturer/distributor as one group and the dealer as the
other group.
1:43:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised then that there are two separate
parts to HB 303. She noted her understanding that the first
part of HB 303 outlines the agreements between
manufacturers/distributors and dealers, and is followed by a
second part, on page 7, Article 5, that outlines the product
warranty provisions. She asked whether a manufacturer could
cancel a dealer for engaging in poor business practices, except
when a dealer does not meet financial requirements or where
fraud is involved. She also inquired as to whether a
manufacturer should be able to switch to a dealer who seems more
entrepreneurial oriented when problems arise.
MR. SHATTUCK suggested that perhaps providing the committee with
the formal structure might help answer some questions. He
reviewed the bill sections: Section 1 adds proposed AS
45.25.920 to distinguish between motor vehicles and power sports
equipment.
1:46:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether a car manufacturer
dealership could only be terminated when the aforementioned two
conditions were met.
MR. SHATTUCK offered that there are several ways in which the
agreements can be terminated under HB 303. For example, the
agreement could be initiated by the dealer or the
manufacturer/distributor, but the agreement between the
manufacturer/distributor and dealer may vary from a year to
multiple years. However, in Alaska the contracts tend to be
single years. In terms of the contract, HB 303 does not attempt
to insert the state into the process, except as it draws a
parallel to the automotive dealerships and manufacturer's
relationships.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a car manufacturer can only
cancel the dealership when the dealer fails to pay for the cars
or engages in fraud.
MR. SHATTUCK further answered that there are ways for either the
manufacturer or the dealer to cancel an agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN informed Representative LeDoux that there
will be testimony by dealers who can better explain the
relationship.
1:48:23 PM
MR. SHATTUCK went on to explain the sectional analysis of HB
303. He said that Article 1 addresses the agreement practices
between manufacturers and dealers. Proposed AS 45.20.010-040,
address the formation, cancelation, and non-renewal of the
agreements, and the consent to transfer and change the existing
agreement that set parameters in line with how industry
currently operates. Article 2 addresses the responsibilities of
the parties in proposed AS 14.27.100-120, and also the
determination of the dealer's area and [sets up] how to make
changes in the [dealer's] area. He said that Article 3 under
proposed AS 45.27.200-260, addresses sale or shipment prior to
an agreement, and the respective responsibilities of the
manufacturer/distributor and the dealer on matters such as
involuntary order or delivery, refusal to deliver, sale or
termination, and delivery and condition of the products.
MR. SHATTUCK explained that proposed Article 4 provisions
address product repurchase requirements, while proposed Article
5 outlines the product warranties. Proposed AS 45.27.400 -
45.27.500 addresses the written warranty requirement and also
provides the basis for defective product reimbursements and
shipping costs, as well as timely reimbursement for claims. All
of this, he opined, creates a friendlier environment for the
customer. Mr. Shattuck concluded by saying that proposed
Article 6 outlines the liability resulting from audit,
competition with an authorized dealer, factory recall notices,
advertising, and required posting by an authorized dealer;
proposed Article 7 sets up the manufacturer and distributor
liability, civil and criminal penalties; and finally that
proposed Article 8 outlines the exemptions and creates
definitions.
1:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to Chair Olson, answered that
he has not had anyone contact this office and that the first
hint of opposition surfaced in the committee materials passed
out today. He related an example in which an outboard dealer
sells an outboard motor to someone in Hoonah, however, the
product warranty recall reveals all motors of that model have a
crankshaft problem. He opined that the replacement cost or
repair of the motor should be borne by manufacturer and should
not be a burden for the dealer who sold the motor, who will
[ultimately] pass the cost back to the customer.
1:53:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted her agreement and offered that it
seems that proposed Article 5 through the rest of HB 303 should
take care of her concerns about warranty repairs. However, she
maintained her concern with Article 1 because it seems
unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that as an attorney, Representative
LeDoux probably knows more than most people that when a party
has something in writing, he/she is probably better off [than
with a verbal understanding]. He suggested obtaining
information regarding how warranties are structured from those
that deal with the issues every day.
1:54:36 PM
DUDLEY BENESCH, Board Member, Alaska Marine Dealers Association;
Partner, Alaska Mining and Diving Supply, stated that HB 303 is
important legislation for all Alaskan consumers, especially
anyone who uses boats, outboard motors, snowmobiles, or all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs) and the dealers that sell and service
these products. He offered that he has seen many changes within
the power sports and marine industry over his 30 plus years as a
dealership partner. Although the numbers of ATVS, outboard
motors, and boats is relatively small, the industry is dominated
by a few very powerful manufacturers, he opined. He said
manufacturers have, over time, initiated one-sided dealer
agreements with all the terms, policies, restrictions, and
conditions written by the manufacturer's legal staff. He said
he thought these agreements have led to many problems, [which
are] well-documented and written about in-trade industry
publications, that have a significant impact on the Alaskan
consumer and the servicing Alaskan dealer. He said he believes
that HB 303 is the key to establishing a better balance in the
relationship between manufacturer, the servicing dealer, and the
consumer. He noted that Alaska is not alone in addressing the
problems currently within the industry. In fact, according to
the latest Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA)
statistics, seven states including Texas, New York, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, and Missouri have passed legislation to address many,
if not all of the issues addressed in HB 303. Furthermore,
according to the MRAA, five states, including Alaska, have
legislation pending.
1:56:53 PM
MR. BENESCH, in response to a question by Representative
Gardner, explained that the MRAA is a group of marine dealers
throughout the country. The bill addresses the problem of
defective product or assembly, he said, by requiring the
manufacturer to solve and remedy defective design issues in a
timely manner, which is not currently the case. He opined that
these issues in far too many cases are not being resolved and
the manufacturers often offer a temporary fix instead of finding
a permanent solution. He also said that HB 303 would require
the manufacturer to solve the design issue, replace the product
with a non-defective product, or refund the money to the dealer
as a pass through to the consumer. Currently, some
manufacturers routinely ship products with known defects to a
dealer, he opined, using the philosophy that "it is less
expensive to fix in it in the field than in their own facility."
He noted that, in many instances the manufacturer does not have
the parts available to fix the product, and since a product is
being shipped to a remote location, the delay can give the
manufacturer time to either figure out how to fix the product or
secure the necessary parts to fix the product. He said as a
dealer, he frequently receives products with recall notices,
sometimes that include a notice from the manufacturer that the
shipment just received - that the dealer [may have] already sold
- is now either unsalable, or potentially unsafe until the
product is fixed. He opined that shipment of defective parts
creates special problems in rural areas because the outboard,
the ATV, or the snowmobile, with the defective part may already
be in use. Furthermore, the vehicle may be the sole
transportation used to get food and go to work. He suggested
that HB 303 would prevent manufacturers from threatening dealers
with product availability, the practice of overloading dealers
with un-needed inventory, and dealership termination without
just cause. This bill in its entirety attempts to create a
level playing field by establishing a better balance between the
manufacturer, the dealer, and the consumer.
2:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether it would be effective to
include a disincentive in HB 303 such that when a manufacturer
ships products subject to recall, the dealer is not obliged to
pay for the products.
MR. BENESCH replied that, in his view, oftentimes a manufacturer
does not discover the problem until the product has been
shipped, or just prior to shipping the product. He offered that
there are [only] four major snowmobile manufacturers, and five
manufacturers of outboard motors, therefore, the dealers just
don't have enough leverage. He alleged that manufacturers keep
dealers separated. He offered that although his dealership is
huge and he may be the biggest dealer in North America for a
particular brand, [he has found] the manufacturer to be
inflexible, especially when the repair will cost the
manufacturer money. He acknowledged that the provisions in HB
303 will cost the manufacturer, but he pointed out that
currently, [the warranty repair] cost is borne by the dealers
and the consumers.
2:02:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that proposed Section 2,
Article 1, doesn't seem to deal with defective products.
MR. BENESCH answered that he appreciates this opportunity to
address that issue because he thinks that issue is well
addressed in Version C. He related that when a dealer does not
serve the market area [well], the manufacturer can use a process
to serve notice to the dealer. While the manufacturer must
initially work with the dealer when the dealer does not improve
or perform, [Version C gives the] manufacturer a process to
repurchase the inventory back from the dealer, at the dealer's
landed cost, the cost for the product and the freight. Version
C specifically gives the manufacturer the ability to change
dealers. In further response to a question by Representative
LeDoux, he referred to page 3, lines 18-21, in proposed section,
which read:
45.27.110. Changing the area of responsibility.
Before changing an area of responsibility, the
manufacturer or distributer shall give the authorized
dealer at least 90 days' written notice by mail before
the change. This section does not apply to an
authorized dealer who relocates or opens additional
facilities within two miles ...
MR. BENESCH, then referred to page 3, lines 24-31, proposed AS
45.27.120 (a)-(b)(3) which sets up provisions to allow a
manufacturer to add an authorized dealer, which read:
Section 45.27.120. Adding authorized dealer to area of
responsibility.
(a) A manufacturer or distributor may not enter
into an agreement that would add an authorized dealer
within the existing authorized dealer's area of
responsibility without giving at least 90 days'
written notice by mail to all potentially affected
authorized dealers in the area of responsibility.
(b) The notice under (a) of this section must
include (1) a determination that the community or
territory can support an additional authorized dealer.
(2) a calculation of the financial effect on the new
authorized dealer and the existing authorized dealers
who may be affected; and
(3) a determination of whether the existing authorized
dealers of the same line of product makes, models, or
classifications in the authorized dealer's area of
responsibility are providing adequate representation,
competition, and convenient consumer care for the same
line of product makes, models, and classifications.
2:07:14PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that she did not believe the
proposed sections identify just cause for determination.
MR. BENESCH related his understanding that the intent of HB 303
is not to take away the manufacturer's ability to change
authorized dealers, even though dealer changes have posed
problems. He outlined that currently a manufacturer will assign
a dealer and when perhaps sales slow [down] due to the economy,
the manufacturer will put another dealer in the same market area
and refuse to repurchase or take back the product from the
initial dealer. When that happens, it negatively impacts small
businesses and consumers. He said he felt that the
manufacturer's predatory techniques sometimes put small
businesses out of business. He recalled receiving a notice
requesting an explanation as to why his company had not sold 50
lawnmowers in Barrow [because] the manufacturer's statistics
showed that for every 1,000 in population, 50 lawnmowers should
be sold. He stressed that manufacturers will [threaten] to set
up another dealer [in the dealer's immediate area] if the dealer
hasn't increased sales.
2:09:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that [such tactics] might be bad
for small dealers. However, [setting up another dealer] would
[also] give consumers two businesses from which to choose.
MR. BENESCH explained that HB 303 contains a provision for
spacing, that [mirrors] automotive [dealership] spacing, such
that in an area with 4,000 or more people a manufacturer could
set up a dealership every 12 miles while in smaller villages,
[dealerships] could be set at 30 mile [intervals]. Although it
might seem that having a number of dealers every 12 miles makes
more sense, it actually results in dealers selling their
products at a loss, thus those businesses risk going out of
business. He asserted that many provisions in HB 303 are aimed
at [warranty] service because dealers lose money on warranty
work.
2:11:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, regarding an earlier question with
respect to a dealer who is not performing, referred to page 2,
lines 25-28, of Version C, to proposed AS 45.27.040 which read:
Except as provided by AS 45.25.110, a manufacturer or
distributor may not change an agreement with an
authorized dealer unless the manufacturer or
distributor gives notice by mail to the authorized
dealer at least 90 days before the change.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested that this proposed statute
allows for a change to an existing manufacturer/dealer's
agreement, thus with notice [given], a manufacturer can [change]
or add dealers.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to Version C, page 1, lines 13-
14, and to page 2, lines 1-9, pointed out that proposed AS
45.27.020 would only allow the manufacturer [to change dealers
when] the dealers don't meet [two conditions], financial
requirements or due to fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed that a manufacturer cannot cancel
the agreement without having just cause [to do so].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted her agreement.
2:13:05 PM
MR. BENESCH pointed out that [each of] his dealer agreements
contain a termination clause, which outlines [grounds for
termination] and provides that the manufacturer can immediately
[terminate a dealer] when fraud is involved.
2:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that it is difficult to pass
legislation without unintended consequences. She related her
prior experience as a dealer, and said that oftentimes she had
to explain that [doing business in Alaska is different], as was
illustrated in the previous example about the [dealer's]
lawnmower [sales requirement] in Barrow. She expressed concern
that should [proposed HB 303] pass, some manufacturers might
decide doing business in Alaska is onerous.
2:15:24 PM
MR. BENESCH related that his company, [Alaska Mining & Diving]
is the largest Ski-Doo dealer in North American and is also one
of the largest outboard dealers. He pointed out that Alaskan
dealers are large compared to the Lower-48 dealers. Although
the Alaska [outboard motor] market is not as large as the
outboard [motor] market in Florida, Alaska dealerships have
significant volumes because the [boat, outboard motor, or
snowmobile] is utilized as an automobile. Consequently, Alaska
dealerships tend to represent larger dealers for the
manufacturers, and work with major manufacturers. Although some
smaller manufacturers might find that [proposed HB 303] makes
doing business in Alaska [onerous]; he pointed out that
legislation of this type exists in seven other states. In fact,
Louisiana passed legislation that licenses the actual
manufacturer, the dealerships, and the salespeople. Still, all
of the major manufacturers sell their products to Louisiana. He
noted five states have pending legislation [of this type], and
opined that manufacturers [oppose] the proposed legislation. A
proposal in Michigan was thwarted, but Michigan currently is
considering another bill that is [similar] to HB 303.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her reluctance to interfere with
the free business market, and opined that as a larger dealer Mr.
Benesch would have some clout to negotiate. She expressed
concern about the allegation that manufacturers knowingly ship
defective products to Alaskans, and offered her support to add
punitive provisions [to HB 303] that would exempt [dealers] from
paying for product until the product is fixed.
CHAIR OLSON noted there are other people [scheduled to] testify
who probably could shed light on her questions.
2:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the impact on dealers and
consumers in states that have passed legislation similar [to HB
303].
MR. BENESCH answered that [he cannot address] the financial
impact on manufacturers. However, from the annual dealer
meetings he has attended, he has gleaned that dealers are
extremely happy with the results. He opined [HB 303] shifts the
burden of warranty issues and defective product design issues
back to the manufacturers where it belongs. Mr. Benesch said he
also [supports] the provisions of HB 303 that prevent a
manufacturer from threatening dealers because he said he thinks
this is an issue. He offered that he has 30 years experience in
business and has invested lots of energy, time, and history with
his manufacturers.
2:21:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH requested that Mr. Benesch expand on [the
differences in] Alaska [compared] to the contiguous United
States, with respect to the product performance and life and
safety issues of people who rely on these products. Often the
products are used to sustain a subsistence economy and are not
recreational [vehicles], but rather provide necessary
transportation.
MR. BENESCH agreed that much of the bill is safety related and
when a person is 100 miles up a river and discovers his
[outboard or snowmobile] is defective, the result can be a
serious life or death issue. He recalled the 1970s when
American manufacturers produced low quality automobiles with
many defects. At that time, automobile manufacturers had
policies such that manufacturers did not pay dealers a fair rate
for servicing. Once the automotive industry started paying full
retail on parts for warranty repairs, full shop labor rates,
changed the flat time rates to "real world times", and the
manufacturers started working with dealers on the servicing, the
burden shifted to the manufacturer. Therefore, the manufacturer
turned attention to making better products with a renewed
commitment to lower defect rates which resulted in American
manufacturers producing a quality product with a higher level of
consumer enjoyment. He said he believes that HB 303 will help
outboard motors, ATVS, and snowmobiles dealers in the same way.
2:24:55 PM
CRAIG COMPEAU, Owner, Compeau's Marine, opined that HB 303 is an
important bill for Alaska and Alaskan consumers. He offered
that Alaska's power sport dealers have shouldered a
disproportionate burden of responsibility to remedy defective
product issues and warranty situations that arise because he
believes it is up to the dealers to keep their valued customers
happy and satisfied with the products they sell. He opined that
HB 303 puts the onus back on the manufacturers to treat Alaska
dealerships fairly when these unfortunate situations arise by
compensating the dealers for [an amount] closer to the actual
cost of diagnosing, repairing, and shipping defective products.
As mentioned earlier, 20 years ago the auto industry faced many
of the issues that the marine power sports industry is facing,
and now any car dealership would relate that things have
improved regarding warranty service and reimbursement. He
offered that historically, in an effort to protect the
reputation of a company and the product lines, dealerships have
covered the costs that manufacturers do not rather than pass the
cost on to consumers. As a 63-year old family business, he
said, his dealership has attempted to make these situations
transparent to the customers. He stated [warranty costs] are
even more difficult for the smaller dealers to absorb, and that
ultimately both the dealer and customer suffer the consequences
of an issue that is outside [the dealer's] control. He shared
that his grandfather, Bob Compeau, Sr., who started the business
in 1945, used to say, "Treat your customers right, and they'll
tell four or five others, but treat them poorly and they'll tell
four or five hundred." He stated that at his Fairbanks store,
customer service is not a department, it is an attitude. He
said he believes that HB 303 has the ability to create a better
environment for dealers, and therefore a better experience for
Alaskan consumers. "The bottom line," quite literally, is that
HB 303 is good for Alaska, he opined.
2:27:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that there are other approaches
to place the responsibility of warranty repairs on
manufacturers. She related an example in which the purchase
price is 40 percent off the list [price], but that a
manufacturer in Idaho could offer [a dealer] 50 percent off [the
price] if the dealer is willing to take on the responsibility
for warranties. She opined that the manufacturer and the dealer
[should] decide and negotiate such agreements. Representative
Gardner acknowledged that the [ability to] negotiate [is limited
due to] smaller [sales] in Alaska, but she expressed concern
that HB 303 may have unintended consequences for consumer access
to products in Alaska.
MR. COMPEAU responded that the issue of dealer liability due to
defective products puts the dealer in an untenable position. He
explained that customers want products and when products are not
safe and need to be held [by the dealer], or when defective
products are delivered but are unsafe the dealers [are caught in
the middle]. He offered that dealers want manufacturers to
build better products to minimize warranty issues. However,
[currently] dealers are burdened with the costs to "make it
right for the customers," so dealers shoulder the costs. He
opined that dealers want to shift some of that responsibility
and cost back to the manufacturers.
2:30:03 PM
KATHY VAN KLEEK, Senior Vice-President, Government Relations,
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), informed the
committee that SVIA is a national trade association that
represents manufacturers and distributors of all-terrain
vehicles [ATVs]. She noted that the International Snowmobile
Manufacturer's Association supports her comments as well. Ms.
Van Kleek related SVIA's opposition to HB 303. With respect to
a comment made that dealers have gone to industry for years with
complaints, she said that although that may be true, that this
is the first time that SVIA has heard about these problems. She
noted that SVIA has not been approached about the problems or
potential solutions to this issue. She related her
understanding that manufacturers cover warranty costs and
product recall costs. She informed the committee that it is
criminal activity and criminal conduct to knowingly market a
defective product, which is addressed by a myriad of federal
laws. She opined that no reputable manufacturer would ship
defective products to dealers in Alaska or any other state.
Although the prior speaker's comments were geared to the boating
industry, she related her assumption that any reputable
manufacturer would follow federal law [because of the] severe
federal penalties attached to it. She said she has concerns
with numerous provisions of HB 303, and SVIA believes the bill
will have a negative impact on manufacturers, distributors, and
Alaska consumers. She opined that these issues are more
appropriately addressed by manufacturers [through] their
dealers. She offered that the issues involve competitive
considerations. She further offered that Alaska statutes
provide numerous protections under AS 45.25, Article 9 (a),
which apply to distributors and dealerships. She related that
SVIA does not believe a particular class of dealer should be
singled out for special treatment under the law.
2:33:23 PM
MS. VAN KLEEK offered her understanding that HB 303
mandates lengthy notice periods before a dealer can be
terminated, and that an underperforming dealer would be
allowed to continue [to sell products even though their
practices contribute to] high levels of consumer
[dis]satisfaction and lost revenue which unreasonably
raises business costs. But even more egregious, she
opined, is that [HB 303] provides that the manufacturer
must continue to provide a terminated dealer with product
parts for [up to] two years after the dealer is terminated,
which allows any dealer to retain and discontinue product
and parts, and allows the underperforming or non-performing
dealer to continue to represent the brand name. She said
that SVIA dealerships are full-line dealerships designed to
both sell and service its products and to provide its
customers [with the] highest quality experience, in terms
of product choice, after-sale service, and customer
support. She added that dividing product sales from part
sales, and enabling dealers to provide one function, but
not the other is unacceptable to SVIA. The aforementioned
would [only] allow unfair competition, cause customer
confusion, and have a negative impact on the permanent
investment of full-line dealers and would disrupt
distribution channels. She noted that replacement parts
represent a significant profit center for SVIA dealers, who
make a sizeable permanent investment in facility,
inventory, staffing, and advertising. She opined that a
parts only dealer could, and likely would, capture the
lucrative profit opportunity while making little to no
permanent investment.
MS. VAN KLEEK offered that parts could even be sold online
[with] no facility or customer interface, which would allow
terminated dealers to continue to engage in the sale of
parts and undercut all the valued dealers in Alaska, who
carry a full line of products and parts and provide quality
service to the consumer. Basically, HB 303 requires
manufacturers to insulate dealers from all risks normally
associated and assumed by business owners in the free
enterprise system. She suggested that if a dealer decides
to go out of business and terminates his franchise, [under
HB 303] the manufacturer is responsible for repurchasing
his inventory. Furthermore, HB 303 requires that warranty
service work be reimbursed at the dealer's retail rate,
which is not a discount rate, as well as reimbursement of
an additional hour at the retail rate for [the dealer's]
administration, and 25 percent mark-up of the dealer's
handling fee [to cover the] shipping [costs] for parts
replaced under warranty. She reiterated that federal law
strictly regulates recalls and notice thereof, and
therefore it is unnecessary, if not inappropriate, for
state law to do so as well. Manufacturers, she opined,
strive to make parts [available] for warranty repairs as
quickly as possible and she said she was not aware of any
state law that mandates [that manufacturers] provide the
part within 30 days or offer a full product replacement or
full refund [to the dealer]. She opined that [setting] an
absolute time for supplying the repair part is not only
extremely problematic, but unreasonable.
MS. VAN KLEEK reiterated that she was not aware of any
other state statute that [allows] a dealer to dictate the
method and carrier for product delivery. Manufacturers
have established delivery systems and to use another
carrier or [shipping] method raises costs, in terms of the
delivery itself, but manpower costs, and [costs to]
administer different [shipping] systems. Ms. Van Kleek
opined [that proposed HB 303] disproportionately protects
underperforming dealers [who] aren't providing appropriate
levels of service and sales support to customers at the
expense of other dealers and Alaska consumers. Therefore,
dealers who invest in the brand are harmed because
underperforming dealers remain in the network and offer
buyers poor experiences, both in terms of service and
availability of product, she opined. Such dealers hurt
SVIA brand names and hurt the consumers [because] higher
operation costs for manufacturers and increased litigation
costs lead to higher product costs. She said that SVIA
respectfully requests that the committee oppose [HB 303
because] the interests of retail purchasers, distributors,
manufacturers, and good dealers will be harmed.
2:38:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether she was aware that
HB 303 is supported by the Alaska Snowmobile Association, and
whether she contacted any dealers in Alaska as the
manufacturer's representative or any industry representatives to
see if they oppose HB 303.
MS. VAN KLEEK answered no.
2:39:24 PM
DAVID DICKERSON, Director, State Government Relations, National
Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), said that NMMA
represents about 1,700 boat builders and engine manufacturers,
as well as accessory manufacturers, which and represents about
90 percent of the recreational marine products made in the
United States. He expressed significant concerns about HB 303
and said he would address the overall effect of this bill and
how he believes it will present problems for the marketplace.
He opined that HB 303 absolves the dealer of the impact of poor
business decisions. For instance, if a dealer overstocks or has
trouble with a particular line that [he/she] brought into the
dealership voluntarily, that the dealer basically has a "get out
debt free card". He explained that a dealer could write a
[termination] letter within 30 days and the manufacturer then
has to pull parts, rugs, signs, and engines. If it is a package
sale, the manufacturer must pull the engines and boats from the
[dealer's floor], out of [the dealer's loan portfolio], and [the
dealer] is then free to [select] another brand [to carry]. He
said he thinks that scenario [demonstrates] a significant
concern when [seen as a whole].
2:41:48 PM
MR. DICKERSON related that he called the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) as well as the two largest manufacturers
of boats and engines in the world, who all [acknowledged]
that if USCG mandates a recall, the federal law requires
that [the manufacturers] pay for the cost of administering
that recall. He explained that when the recall is
voluntarily entered into by the manufacturer, the two
largest [manufacturers] advised they issue a service bill,
which means that [manufacturers] do not ask people to bring
the product immediately because it does not meet a USCG
safety standard. However, when the [customer] brings the
item in for service, the product would be repaired and
would fall under the cost of warranty reimbursement. He
noted that replacing a dealer is very expensive and is a
lengthy process exacerbated by the short boating and
marketing season in Alaska. However, [that process], he
opined, [would be] unbalanced by giving the dealer a 30-day
option to move on to another manufacturer.
2:43:15 PM
MR. DICKERSON said he believes [HB 303] ignores the system
by which boat dealers and manufacturers preorder [the
number of] boats that need to be built to meet demand. He
explained that preorder decisions are made in August and
September by dealers who [assess and order] boats by brand
[for the] next boat season. Preorders are voluntary and
while [dealers] are not entirely held to the order,
[preorders represent] an important part of [how a
]manufacturing plant runs, and [allows manufacturers to
pull] together national figures. He opined that to set up
a system in which a dealer can easily walk away from [the
preorder] is anticompetitive and shifts the risk away from
the dealer to an extent that is unfair to all concerned.
MR. DICKERSON opined that [under HB 303] the dealer
territories [established] are inflexible, particularly
given the topography of Alaska, as well as the need to use
ferries. He also opined that [HB 303] does not [take into
consideration] the differences in travel time that [happens
with] a 30-mile territory, or even a 12-mile territory,
which might affect where someone would buy a dealership.
He also said he believes [HB 303} makes it difficult for
the manufacturer to make prudent decisions [when]
transferring to a new dealership owner. A manufacturer who
tries to manage his dealer network could view a change in
dealership owners as an opportunity to consolidate
dealerships. HB 303, he opined allows that if the new
buyer of the dealership meets the manufacturer's
requirements, the manufacturer is mandated to continue the
relationship with the new dealer, regardless of market
conditions. Mr. Dickerson asked the committee to consider
delaying action on HB 303 [to allow him] an opportunity to
come to Alaska and meet individually with the bill sponsors
and with dealers who are concerned [about these issues].
He offered to work with those involved [in HB 303].
2:47:19 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, in response to a question about his position,
explained his responsibilities include enforcement of Alaska's
anti-trust and consumer protection laws, which he has been doing
for eight years.
2:47:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether he has any comments regarding
enforcement of HB 303.
MR. SNIFFEN noted that a provision of HB 303 would make a
violation of any of these provisions a violation of Alaska's
Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Therefore, when a dealer
thought a manufacturer was in violation of an agreement, the
dealer would file a complaint and Mr. Sniffen would investigate
the complaint to determine if a violation had occurred and would
take the appropriate action.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether that would be Mr. Sniffen's
only involvement.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that is probably correct, but highlighted
that HB 303 contains provisions that conflict with provisions of
the ACPA. For example, under the ACPA, a violation of the
statute can result in penalties of up to $25,000 and injunctive
relief. Furthermore, there are treble damage provisions for
private enforcement of the ACPA that are a little at odds with
the penalty provisions that exist in the language of HB 303. He
said he is not sure how to work those out, but that the division
is reviewing those provisions to determine if there is a better
way to approach enforcement.
2:49:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the provisions of HB 303
focus largely on consumer protection or on dealer protection or
if one part of HB 303 focuses on dealer protection and one part
deals with consumer protection.
MR. SNIFFEN expressed concern with legislation that attempts to
restrict parties in the marketplace from freely entering into
agreements so long as they are not illegal agreements because it
puts an anti-competitive pressure on the system. He noted that
as a consumer advocate he likes the warranty provisions of HB
303 to some extent. He said although he wasn't familiar enough
with the specific problems in the [recreational vehicle]
industry since his main expertise lies with the auto industry,
consumers who live in areas without a variety of services could
benefit from some of the provisions in HB 303 that require
warranty service be performed by trained technicians and that
require certain parts are available. Although there are
consumer protections in HB 303, the bill would place significant
restrictions on the marketplace that could be harmful in some
ways. He related that his division is still working to
determine whether there are direct federal conflicts with the
Uniform Commercial Code, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
anti-trust laws that HB 303 might impact. He offered to work to
identify and solve any concerns he has with HB 303.
2:51:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Mr. Sniffen was aware of
any problem in Alaska with consumer complaints on vehicles
addressed in HB 303.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the Commercial/Fair Business Section
does not receive nearly as many complaints about recreational
vehicles as with automobiles, although he has had some
experience with recreational vehicle complaints. He explained
that Alaska currently has a "lemon law" that applies to new
motor vehicles, but does not apply to recreational vehicles. He
opined that consumers with warranty complaints in the automobile
industry might report their problems because they have recourse
with automobile manufacturers.
CHAIR OLSON closed the public testimony on HB 303.
2:53:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:53 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.
2:59:51 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if there was any further discussion on HB 303.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he thought HB 303 is a good [bill]
and he thanked the sponsor for proposing HB 303. He said while
he has enjoyed courtesies from dealerships in urban settings, he
acknowledged that [the situation differs] in a rural setting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she likes the warranty portion
of HB 303. She doesn't want to hold up HB 303, but believes
that some parts of HB 303 are problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her agreement with Representative
LeDoux. She specified that although she has misgivings about
the contractual obligations and the state defining dealer
territories, she would not object to moving HB 303 forward.
3:02:27 PM
CHAIR OLSON stated that he has checked daily with the bill
sponsor and that there has not been any opposition to HB 303
until early this afternoon. He said although he has some
concerns, the good provisions of the bill more than outweigh his
concerns. Therefore, he said he would like to see HB 303 moved
out. He noted that HB 303 was filed on January 15, 2008, the
first day of session.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her interest in the impact on
dealers in states where similar legislation has passed. She
expressed interest in any unintended consequences of legislation
[of this type].
3:03:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report proposed CS for HB 303,
Version 25-LS1183\C, Bannister, 1/29/08, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 303(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:04:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|