02/02/1998 01:04 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 1998
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 343
"An Act excluding certain motor vehicles from the definition of
commercial motor vehicle."
- MOVED CSHB 343(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 343
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/23/98 2114 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/98 2114 (H) TRANSPORTATION
01/23/98 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 6DP
02/02/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 343.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4361
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 343.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Sanders
and Elton. Representatives Kookesh and Cowdery arrived at
4:06 p.m. and 4:07 p.m., respectively.
HB 343 - DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE
Number 0058
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business was HB 343
"An Act excluding certain motor vehicles from the definition of
commercial motor vehicle." He asked Representative Gary Davis to
present his bill.
Number 0084
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said
that HB 343 was a subject that he was personally familiar with, as
indicated in the support materials. He has been an equipment
operator in the state for a number of years and has always
recognized there's a difference between operating a piece of heavy
equipment and driving, for example, a commercial truck. He shared
his experience of being stopped by a policeman and asked for his
commercial driver's license (CDL) while relocating a front-end
loader from the shop to the job site which required going through
town. He responded to the officer that he didn't believe he needed
a commercial driver's license to operate a piece of heavy
equipment.
Number 0208
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that upon review, he discovered the
state, in order to be in compliance, had adopted the federal
commercial driver's license law. He maintains it was simply an
oversight that an exemption wasn't made for heavy equipment when
the state adopted the federal law. He pointed out that heavy
equipment is listed in the exemptions of the federal regulations,
but not in the state statutes. He has been informed that public
safety officials treat the law differently and have acknowledged
there is some vagueness.
Number 0244
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained that House Bill 343 adds an
additional exemption for motor vehicles for which a commercial
driver's license is not required to operate. Specifically, it
relates to moving equipment from the shop site to the job site.
His view is that HB 343 simplifies and clarifies the statute.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said it was his understanding that no
license, meaning automobile license or truck license, is required
for rubber-tired backhoes or small vehicles to travel on roads.
It's considered an unlicensed vehicle and the insurance is covered
in the business. The insurance audit is based on licensed vehicle
and unlicensed vehicle. For example, property damage done by a
dump truck is covered as a licensed vehicle, but there is an
overall construction policy which covers unlicensed vehicles. He
is of the opinion that if this equipment is not required to have a
license plate, the operators shouldn't be required to have a
commercial driver's license. It is conceivable that an operator
may not have a driver's license or even know how to drive a
vehicle. He expressed his support for HB 343 as an effort to
clarify the issue.
Number 0493
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS was of the opinion there were provisions
elsewhere in statute that require a driver's license for any
vehicle which is on a highway. Most construction company owners
require a driver's license because hopefully, individuals who are
hired can operate more than one piece of equipment. Also, there
is the possibility that a piece of equipment will break down and
the operator will need to drive some type of vehicle to get parts,
et cetera. He presumed that all municipal crews are required to
have a commercial driver's license and are utilized in more than
one facet of the operation. He reiterated that HB 343 is intended
to cover moving from the job site to the construction site.
Number 0673
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON inquired about the 150-mile provision.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that was an inclusion carried over
from the farm vehicles. For example, in farming communities, it is
not uncommon to run a tractor from one farm to another, but the
150-mile provision restricts the time and distance they can be on
the highway.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if HB 343 would conflict with any
existing federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained this legislation basically mirrors
the federal law and reiterated he thought it was just an oversight
in the state statutes.
Number 0763
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that in Commissioner Otte's
September 5, 1996, letter to Representative Davis, the commissioner
basically agrees that a commercial driver's license would not be
required for a front loader less than 26,000 pounds or for an
incidental move between jobs. While the commissioner doesn't see
a need to change the statute, Representative Hudson agreed that it
was a good idea to clarify it.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS related that following his incident, he went
back to the shop and informed other construction company owners
that if this is the situation, then all the motor grader operators
needed a CDL. The owners retorted that if indeed that was the
situation, they would send the next individual hired who didn't
have a CDL down to the Division of Motor Vehicles in a No. 16 Cat
grader or a 988 loader to take the commercial driver's license
test. He conceded that it may not be completely out of line, but
it does seem somewhat ridiculous.
Number 0855
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON pointed out that our highways are somewhat
different in Southeast Alaska, and asked if this exemption would
apply to someone who has a piece of equipment in Angoon and wants
to get it to Juneau? He noted the legislation states, "a land
highway or vehicular way" and asked if highway included the Alaska
Marine Highway?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said it was his intent that if a contractor in
Angoon got a contract job in Juneau, the operator could run the
loader onto the ferry, take it off the ferry in Juneau and run it
through town to the job site without having a CDL.
Number 0911
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if the mileage on the ferry
would be included in the 150-mile provision?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that's not spoken to, but he didn't think
it would be.
Number 0951
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration, said conceptually, the Division of Motor Vehicles
does not have a problem with this legislation. A person who is
operating any piece of equipment on a highway, vehicular way or
area is required to have a driver's license to ensure highway and
traffic safety.
Number 0974
MS. HENSLEY referred to page 2, line 15, and said the term
"construction vehicles" is very broad. The Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities has also expressed concern
with the broadness of that term. She explained that language does
exist in regulation which identifies these vehicles. The division
does not want lowboys or dump trucks included in "construction
vehicle" even though they are considered to be a construction
vehicle, because those individuals would be required to have a
commercial driver's license. She suggested deleting "construction
vehicles" and inserting "special mobile equipment as defined by
regulation." She was of the opinion that that definition meets the
criteria Representative Davis was trying to establish in HB 343.
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested that in conjunction with the
amendment, the committee may want to change "vehicle" to
"equipment" on page 2, lines 18-19.
MS. HENSLEY said, "Actually they're a vehicle; they are moving
(indisc.) vehicle. So, it's still a vehicle, it's just defined as
special mobile equipment and then 'as defined by regulation' will
fit all those." She noted the specific regulation was 13 AAC
40.010(52).
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the sponsor would be agreeable to
the suggested amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed with the amendment.
Number 1188
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved and asked unanimous consent to adopt
"the department's recommended amendment" on page 2, line 15. There
being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion and asked unanimous consent to
move HB 343, as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes. There being no
objection, CSHB 343(TRA) moved from the House Transportation
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1230
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 1:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|