03/11/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB354 | |
| HB366 | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2010
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 354
"An Act relating to eligibility for loans from the Alaska
capstone avionics revolving loan fund."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 366
"An Act relating to indemnification agreements that relate to
motor carrier transportation contracts."
- MOVED CSHB 366(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act relating to travel by snow machine within five miles of
the right-of-way of the James Dalton Highway."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 354
SHORT TITLE: AK CAPSTONE AVIONICS REVOLVING LOAN FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/10 (H) L&C
02/23/10 (H) TRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER L&C
03/08/10 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/08/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/08/10 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/10/10 (H) L&C RPT 4DP
03/10/10 (H) DP: BUCH, NEUMAN, CHENAULT, OLSON
03/11/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 366
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR CARRIER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) TRA, JUD
03/11/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: SNOW MACHINE USE IN DALTON HWY CORRIDOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLY, NEUMAN
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) TRA, RES
03/11/10 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MATTHEW JOHNSON, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 354, on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Wes Keller.
GREG WINEGAR, Director
Division of Investments
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 354.
CATHY JEANS, System Branch Manager
Division of Investments
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 354.
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 366.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 366.
CHUCK ONSTOTT, General Manager; Midnight Sun Transportation
President, Alaska Trucking Association
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 366.
JAMES DOYLE, Owner
Weaver Brothers Trucking
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 366.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HB 267.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a joint prime sponsor of HB
267.
THOR STACEY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition HB 267.
GEOFF CARROLL
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 267.
TODD CLARK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 267.
RANDY QUINCY, Board Member
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Willow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 267.
JACK REAKOFF
Wiseman, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 267.
NICOLE FLIPS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 267.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:58 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Munoz, Gruenberg, and T. Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Johansen, Johnson, and Petersen
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
1:33:04 PM
HB 354-AK CAPSTONE AVIONICS REVOLVING LOAN FUND
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 354, "An Act relating to eligibility for loans
from the Alaska capstone avionics revolving loan fund."
1:33:57 PM
MATTHEW JOHNSON, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2008 the Alaska Legislature commissioned the
Capstone Avionics Loan Program. It was designed to
provide access to a new generation of avionics for
Alaskan aircraft owners and operators. The impetus for
the program was an FAA pilot program that confirmed
the substantial value and effectiveness of the
technology. The results of the pilot program revealed
a 47 percent decrease in accident rates in the trial
area, and the FAA estimates that full implementation
will result in 33 percent fewer fatalities statewide.
HB 354 is being proffered to amend existing statute in
order to carry out the mission and original intent of
the Capstone Avionics Program more effectively.
As initially conceived, the program was intended to
provide loans that would allow in-state operators and
carriers to upgrade their avionics. However, there is
an unforeseen gap in eligibility standards precluding
significant portions of the target market from
participation. Because the threshold for eligibility
is predicated upon ownership of aircraft, an owner or
carrier that chooses to lease its aircraft or fleet is
deemed ineligible to access the program. This bill
seeks to redress this deficiency by allowing for
maximal participation.
HB 354 is being offered only as an improvement to the
Capstone Avionics Program because we believe it is in
the interest of public safety, especially as it
pertains to flights in and out of rural
Alaska.
MR. JOHNSON commented on the zero fiscal note attached to
the bill.
1:37:17 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that Capstone Avionics assist
pilots by providing the next generation of technology to
improve flight safety.
MR. JOHNSON offered that the "Automatic Dependent
Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B)" allows aircraft equipped
with the avionics to interact with ground infrastructure
and satellite stations to provide pilots their exact
location, airspeed, rate of ascent and descent, surrounding
terrain, other aircraft and real time weather, which is
essential data needed for a safe flight.
1:38:53 PM
GREG WINEGAR, Director, Division of Investments, Department
of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED),
introduced himself.
CATHY JEANS, System Branch Manager, Division of Investments,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), introduced herself.
1:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the sponsor statement
and related his understanding that owners who lease their
planes are excluded from participating in the Capstone
Avionics Program.
MR. WINEGAR explained that the lessee cannot obtain a state
loan for the Capstone Avionics equipment. In further
response to Representative Gruenberg, he clarified that the
state can only make loans to owners from the Alaska
Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan Fund.
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that some companies buy aircraft
for the purpose of leasing. The owners are not willing to
purchase the Capstone Avionics equipment, but the lessees
want the safety equipment installed in the planes. Thus,
the lessees desire to participate in the Capstone Avionics
Loan Program.
1:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any law currently
would prevent an owner who leases a plane from qualifying
for the loan.
MR. WINEGAR clarified that the Division of Investments can
make a loan to an owner, but HB 354 would allow lessees to
also qualify for the Capstone Avionics loans. In further
response to Representative Gruenberg, he agreed that owners
are not willing to take out loans for the Capstone Avionics
equipment for planes the owners lease out.
1:41:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the loans are
collateralized by the planes.
MR. WINEGAR agreed that the Capstone Avionics loans would
require collateral, but the division might also need other
collateral.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his concern that if an
owner refused to take out a loan he/she may also not allow
the plane to be used as collateral.
MR. WINEGAR agreed. He explained that unless the lessee
has some way to collateralize the Capstone Avionics loan
the division would not make the loan. This bill would
provide the legal authority to make loans to
lessee/operators. He provided a scenario in which a
commercial carrier owned a hangar free and clear, but
leased a plane from a company in Sweden. The company would
offer the deed of trust on the hangar to secure the loan.
In further response to Representative Gruenberg, he
answered that he doubted that a long-term lease would be
allowed.
1:43:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the lessee/operator
would have the ability to collateralize.
MR. WINEGAR stated he was unsure. He explained that some
people expressed interest to do so and in those instances,
the potential lessees/operators have the ability to
collateralize. He was unsure whether all operators who may
be interested in the Capstone Avionics loans have
sufficient collateral to qualify for the loans.
1:43:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the typical amount
needed for Capstone Avionics loans.
MR. WINEGAR answered that the average Capstone Avionics
loan would be $87 thousand for commercial aircraft. He
stated that general aviation loans are less expensive,
typically ranging from $12,000-$18,000.
1:44:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the loans ranging
from $12,000 to $100,000 are to retrofit existing aircraft.
MR. WINEGAR agreed that the typical loan would be to add
Capstone Avionics to existing aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether new aircraft already
are equipped with Capstone Avionics technology.
MR. WINEGAR answered probably not. He said that the
Capstone Avionics technology is relatively new technology
currently being tested in Alaska. The technology will
subsequently be used in the Lower 48 since the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently implementing
Capstone Avionics infrastructure at airports.
Additionally, the FAA is currently working on regulations
that will likely allow for additional manufacturers. The
proposed regulations are anticipated to be finalized in
April 2010. Thus, as new manufacturers enter the market,
the price of the Capstone Avionics technology should also
go down.
1:46:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN inquired as to whether Alaska is
testing this equipment since it is a rugged environment and
if it works well in Alaska the prediction is that Capstone
Avionics will work anywhere.
MR. WINEGAR agreed. He related that testing Capstone
Avionics technology was initiated about six years ago and
was found to be "the way to go." Thus, the Capstone
Avionics technology will be implemented throughout the
country, he stated.
1:46:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the FAA will provide any
funding.
MR. WINEGAR answered yes. He stated that the FAA is
providing a "huge amount of money" for the ground
infrastructure. He characterized the FAA's involvement as
a very large capital investment. The FAA has been working
on portions of the state. He said the federal government
has signaled that it would like Alaska to also invest. He
related that it does not make a lot of sense to equip
airports if the aircraft cannot take advantage of the
Capstone Avionics technology. He offered that Southeast
Alaska and the Anchorage-Fairbanks corridor are now
completed and the FAA has a plan in place for the remainder
of the state.
1:48:23 PM
MR. WINEGAR, in response to Representative Munoz, reported
that the Alaska Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan Fund
started out at $4.8 million and current fund balance is
$4.3 million. In further response to Representative Munoz,
he related that the $4.3 million balance represents the
state funds in the Alaska Capstone Avionics Revolving Loan
Fund. The funding for airport infrastructure will be all
FAA funds. He recalled that the federal contribution would
be in the $50 to $100 million range to cover Alaska.
1:49:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the Capstone Avionics
loan would cover the installation of the Capstone Avionics
technology in aircraft.
MR. WINEGAR answered yes. He noted that certified
installers must install the Capstone Avionics, but the
costs of installation can be part of the loan.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that the
installation could not be collateralized so the
lessee/operator must provide additional collateral.
MR. WINEGAR agreed.
1:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 8-10, of
HB 354. He opined the definition for applicant is vastly
superior to the general definition contained in Title 1.
He offered, for the benefit of members serving on other
committees, that he thought this definition should be used
as the model for other statutory definitions for a person.
1:51:23 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON reported that no public member wishes to
testify during public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked he has been familiar with
the Capstone Avionics program since its inception. He
offered his belief that Alaska is in the forefront on this
issue. He professed that he is proud the state is
encouraging Capstone Avionics installations in aircraft.
He predicted that the sooner airplanes are equipped with
Capstone Avionics, the sooner lives will be saved. He
said, "I wholeheartedly encourage the passage of this
legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HB 354 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB
354 was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
1:52:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
1:53:28 PM
HB 366-MOTOR CARRIER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS
1:53:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 366, "An Act relating to indemnification
agreements that relate to motor carrier transportation
contracts."
1:54:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON as prime sponsor of the bill presented HB
366. He provided a brief history of the genesis of HB 366. The
need for this bill came from within the trucking and shipping
industry. He characterized the indemnification contained in HB
366 as similar to indemnification language the legislature
considered last year that applied to government and university
agencies. He related that some large transportation companies
are forcing small transportation companies to take complete
responsibility and liability for transporting goods. This bill
basically says, "You are responsible for yourself and your own
mistakes and you cannot hold someone else responsible for your
mistakes and enter that into a contract."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON paraphrased from the sponsor statement
which read as follows:
The purpose of this legislation is to promote safety
in the carriage of goods by motor carrier.
A motor carrier must generally comply with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations while it is
transporting goods, and is also subject to additional
common law or statutory duties or responsibilities.
Likewise, shippers or other parties frequently have
legal duties and responsibilities to fulfill when they
provide goods for transportation. More and more
frequently, however, shippers are pressuring motor
carriers to provide transportation under contracts in
which the motor carrier contractually agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the shipper for the
shipper's own failure to meet its legal duties and
responsibilities.
The effect of these indemnification clauses is to
eliminate the incentive for the shipper to meet its
responsibilities and duties in a prudent and
reasonable manner. In essence, such a clause makes the
motor carrier the shipper's insurer. Such a shifting
of liability through contract completely contradicts
sound public policy. One of the primary reasons for
assigning legal liability is to persuade the offending
party to regulate its behavior. However, where the
shipper is at fault but is nevertheless indemnified by
the motor carrier, there is nothing the motor carrier
can do to change its own behavior to make things
safer. That ability lies solely with the shipper.
A similar problem with respect to public construction
contracts has already been addressed by the
legislature in AS 45.45.900.
This legislation voids contractual provisions in motor
carrier transportation contracts that indemnify a
shipper for the shipper's own negligent or intentional
acts or omissions which lead to claims. It maintains
the incentive for a shipper that is a party to a motor
carrier transportation contract to perform its legal
obligations and duties in a prudent and reasonably
safe manner. This legislation now includes an
indemnification clause for the shippers and excludes
the parties to the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and
Facilities Access Agreements.
1:55:09 PM
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff, Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative
Craig Johnson, stated the shippers agreed to the bill with an
amendment that was handed out in committee today.
1:55:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 26-LS1434\R.2, Bannister, 3/10/10, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "by motor carrier"
Page 1, line 7, following "that":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 10, following "person":
Insert "; or
(2) the shipping person will indemnify,
defend, or hold the motor carrier harmless, or agree
to a provision that has the effect of indemnifying,
defending, or holding a motor carrier harmless, from
claims or liability for the negligence, intentional
acts, or intentional omissions of the motor carrier"
Page 2, line 2, following "carrier":
Insert "if the agent, employee, servant, or
independent contractor provides services in connection
with the particular transportation services contract
to which (a) of this section is being applied"
Page 2, line 8, following "person":
Insert "if the agent, employee, servant, or
independent contractor provides services in connection
with the particular transportation services contract
to which (a) is being applied"
Page 2, line 17, following "person":
Insert "or a motor carrier"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "has the meaning"
Insert "and "motor carrier" have the meanings"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:56:15 PM
MS. OSTNES characterized Amendment 1 as a "win-win situation"
which represents an agreement between shipping and motor
carriers that will indemnify and hold harmless actions that
happen during transportation. In response to Chair P. Wilson,
she related a scenario in which a person transports china that
was appropriately packed by the shipper and was broken during
transport. The question arises who is the responsible party to
pay the damages and whether it would be the shipper/packer who
may not have improperly packed the item or if the truck rolled
over due to the driver. Since the shipper and trucker is held
harmless under the bill, deciding the responsible party depends
on what actually happened.
1:57:41 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the matter would be decided by the
courts. She commented that the person in possession would
likely be held responsible.
MS. OSTNES answered no. She stated that the party who created
the problem is responsible for the damage.
MS. OSTNES restated that Amendment 1 is a "win win" situation
since both parties' actions are evaluated to determine the
responsible party.
1:58:56 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
related another scenario for members to illustrate responsible
parties. In his scenario, a motor carrier has agreed to
transport fuel. If the fuel truck pulled in to the loading dock
and the shipper's employee turned the wrong valve and spilled
the fuel, the shipper would be held responsible for any damages.
He pointed out the issue the bill addresses is because some
contracts are being written to indemnify the shipper and require
the carrier to pay for the damages. He described an instance in
which a piece of equipment is shipped, but must be offloaded by
forklift. He related that the carrier pulled into the shipper's
yard and the shipper used his/her employee and forklift to
transfer the equipment and the load broke free and was damaged.
Currently, some contracts are written that the carrier is
responsible if the freight breaks free, regardless of fault.
This bill would place the responsibility on the employee who is
negligent, whether the negligent employee is the motor carrier's
employee or the shipper's employee.
2:00:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN related a scenario in which the
warehouseman takes the pallet off the truck and the pallet tips
and breaks the pallet contents. The warehouseman may say the
load was not secure, but the trucker may insist the load was a
secure load. He asked who would make the determination of
fault.
MR. THOMPSON offered his belief that the matter would be
adjudicated and the respective insurance companies would review
the situation. He related that HB 366 would not change the
system of assigning responsibility, acknowledging that often a
mishap is not solely due to the negligence of one party.
However, one party cannot contractually demand the other party
must assume liability for issues that arise outside of his/her
responsibility.
2:02:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, line 12 of HB 366.
He suggested that language could be added to include storage
since a third party could also be involved. Third parties
should not be allowed to escape from negligence if the third
party did not properly pack the item, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his support for Amendment 1. He
offered his belief that the intent of the bill and Amendment 1
is "to do what is fair." He related instances in which trucking
companies are often required to sign contracts in order to
obtain work. These contracts shift the responsibility for
liability solely to the truckers, which could also result in
increased insurance and shipping costs. The purpose of this
bill is to protect both the transporter and the shipper since
neither should be held liable for damage that he/she did not
cause to happen. The result of Amendment 1 is that when goods
are damaged, the person who caused the damage would be held
liable for the damage.
2:07:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that Amendment 1 is
the result of an agreement between the trucking industry and the
shipper.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that the language is an attempt
to share the joint and several liability.
2:07:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:08:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to
add language on page 2, line 12, after, "the" to add "packing
and storage." Thus, subparagraph (C) would read, "providing a
service, including the packing and storage of property,
incidental to (A) or (B) of this paragraph."
CHAIR P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he did not think he had a problem
with the intent of Amendment 2, but he asked for clarification
on third parties. He related a scenario in which a person
shipping antlers took the antlers to a packing store, but the
packing store subsequently contracted with yet another company
to pack the antlers.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that HB 366 relates to
transportation services and not to packaging services.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the process would begin
at the time the goods are loaded until the goods are delivered.
He stated that packing is an integral part of the shipping
process. The purpose of Amendment 2 is to ensure that each
party is only responsible for his/her own negligence, but not
for anyone else's negligence. In this context, "including means
including, but not limited to." He related that if a situation
arose in which an intermediate packer was involved, that the
third party would also be held responsible. He reported that
this responsibility is called comparative negligence and can be
apportioned so each party is held responsible, and may be held
responsible for a portion of the damage. He characterized
Amendment 2 as a "clear and simple amendment" to ensure that
each party is responsible for only his/her own negligence.
2:11:26 PM
MS. OSTNES referred again to page 2, line 12 and to the
placement of the "," after "service." Thus, packing could be
considered part of the service.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed.
2:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that he did not currently have a
problem with Amendment 2. He asked to work with the maker of
the amendment in the next committee of referral if any
additional issue arises.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG committed to work with the sponsor if
an issue was discovered.
2:12:37 PM
CHAIR WILSON removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:12:57 PM
CHUCK ONSTOTT, General Manager; Midnight Sun Transportation,
President, Alaska Trucking Association, stated that he had not
yet reviewed the amendments being discussed, but the from the
discussions, he thought that is what is needed. He said, "In a
nutshell the legislation is to help protect the small trucking
companies from the larger businesses that are not willing to
take on their responsibilities."
2:14:20 PM
JAMES DOYLE, Owner, Weaver Brothers Trucking, stated that he has
been in business 50 years. He offered his wholehearted support
for the bill. He stated that he personally has been asked to
sign agreements to take on other people's responsibilities. He
must have insurance, but did not believe that he should have to
supply insurance for his company as well as someone else's
company.
2:15:26 PM
MR. DOYLE recalled an instance in which a trucking company
delivered fuel to a gas station. Several days later a customer
came in filled up a small gas can and static electricity caused
a fire, which caused damage to the vehicle and the person. The
trucking company had signed one of the previously mentioned
agreements and was held liable for the damages in the amount of
$1 million. This bill will "make things right" so that each
party takes care of their own liability. He urged the committee
to vote yes.
2:16:48 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 366.
2:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled the original bill as introduced
and the issues. He asked if the issues had been resolved.
MS. OSTNES stated that HB 366 was initiated at the request of
the motor carriers. She related that within the last several
days the shippers discussed the bill. She surmised that some
large oil companies are interested in the bill and British
Petroleum reviewed the language. In further response to
Representative Johansen, she agreed that the truckers worked
with the shippers and the issues have been resolved in the bill.
2:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thought the attorneys would not have
problems with the bill since they will always try to protect
their clients.
2:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON moved to report HB 366, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB
366(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
2:20:14 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.
HB 267-SNOW MACHINE USE IN DALTON HWY CORRIDOR
2:26:35 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 267, "An Act relating to travel by snow
machine within five miles of the right-of-way of the James
Dalton Highway."
2:26:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that HB 267 is the Dalton Highway Access Bill. He paraphrased
from his sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Since 1980, state law has prohibited virtually all
off-road vehicle use within five miles of the Dalton
Highway north of the Yukon River. Miners and oil
workers are allowed to cross the corridor for business
use and local resident snowmachine use is permitted.
HB 267, as introduced, ended the prohibition on
Alaskan's right to travel by snowmachine on this
public land corridor during the winter months.
Many Alaskans believe that travel by snowmachine in
the Dalton Corridor is prevented by federal law.
Wrong. The problem is state law.
A February 20, 2010 Fairbanks Daily News Miner
editorial stated (excerpt):
Some argue that the state must prohibit snowmachines
in the corridor to protect wildlife from renegade
hunters. If this is a reasonable argument, shouldn't
the state apply the same five-mile buffer to the rest
of its remote road system? Most of our highways
traverse lightly populated areas where law enforcement
is spotty.
The Dalton Highway is more remote, yes, but that
actually argues against more stringent regulation. Its
remoteness, lack of services and unpaved surface
discourage most Alaskans from venturing up it - fewer
people, fewer enforcement problems
The blanket prohibition north of the Yukon River is
overkill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that HB 267 would allow
snowmachine use on the Dalton Highway corridor from October
1 to April 30 when soil is frozen and covered in snow. The
resulting impact on surface vegetation should be minimal.
If HB 267 passes, the prohibition on other off-road
vehicles would remain. This bill applies strictly to snow
machines. He pointed out that hunting methods and means
are strictly controlled by the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game regulations and laws. This bill would not change
their laws. In response to Chair Wilson, he agreed that
this bill would not change any restrictions on vehicles
used for hunting.
2:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether any mechanism exists to
close the Dalton Highway Corridor during a year with extremely
late snowfalls and insufficient snow existed for snowmachine
use.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY imagined that an emergency closure would
apply. He stated that would apply to other areas. He opined
that he personally rides snowmachines but does not ride without
snow since it is so difficult. He surmised that during the
timeframe affected by the bill, north of the Yukon it would be
chilly and snowy.
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 1, line 13, which read,
"(3) the use of a snow machine to travel across the highway..."
and asked for an explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY related that travel from West to East is
permitted, but travel along the corridor is limited. In further
response to Representative Johnson, he agreed a person could
pull alongside the road, unload their snowmachine, and access to
property within and outside of the five miles on either side of
the Dalton Highway.
2:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY, in response to Chair Wilson, guessed that
from the Yukon River to the Arctic Ocean is about 357 miles. In
further response to Chair Wilson, he agreed that snowmachines
are not allowed in the Dalton Highway Corridor north of the
Yukon River with a buffer zone five miles along the Dalton
Highway.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY related that this bill would be similar to
other roads in Alaska. Currently the five-mile corridor on
either side of the Dalton Highway is a "no zone."
2:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how snowmachines would gain access
to areas outside the five miles along the Dalton Highway
Corridor.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed. He stated people can fly or hike.
In further response to Representative Johnson, he agreed that
except for flying and hiking land outside the ten-mile corridor
is "shut off."
CHAIR P. WILSON related that some exceptions exist for off-road
vehicles necessary for oil and gas exploration, development,
production, or transportation; a person with mining claims in
the vicinity of the highway and who must use land within five
miles of the right-of-way of the highway to gain access to the
mining claim, and the use of a snow machine to travel across the
highway corridor from land outside the corridor [page 1, line 8-
14.]
2:36:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his perspective is for people to
"put meat on the table" for the purposes of hunting and also for
recreation. He stated that current law excludes people from
using their snowmachine and hunting beyond the corridor.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY related that hunting would not be
unrestricted, since currently the hunting is limited and this
bill would not change that aspect. The ADF&G controls the
methods and means and this bill does not change the fish and
game laws. In response to Representative Petersen, he
identified that the land is state land.
2:37:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as joint prime sponsor of HB 267, related his understanding that
an overabundance of caribou exists in the area of about 75,000
to 80,000 animals while then optimum herd size is 37,500. Thus,
the herd is at risk of overgrazing since the primary food source
is lichen.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that lichen could take 50 years to
grow. Managing the herd is critical. He said that ultimately
3,000 to 3,500 animals should be harvested annually, but the
take is less than 800. Thus, the herd is increasing, which
creates concern of overgrazing and could cause the herd to
crash. He related that crashes have happened in some areas of
the state. His goal is to use this bill as a management tool to
put more meat in Alaskans' freezers. He said the Nelchina herd
has changed from Tier I to Tier II since so many people want to
apply for the permits.
2:40:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON said she thought this bill would not make
changes on any hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that the Alaska Board of Game
would have the ability and opportunity to manage the herd.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the Board of Game could make
management decisions in a different way if the Dalton Highway
corridor was opened.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed the Board of Game would make
determinations on the allocation of game. He said he is
interested in ensuring long-term sustainable food products for
Alaskans.
2:43:32 PM
THOR STACEY stated that he is attending school in Juneau at the
University of Alaska. For the past seven years he has lived at
Wiseman. He is a registered hunting guide holding permits in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. His family has significant
mining interests in the area in question. He has personally
frequently traveled the road, well over 100 times during the
winter and summer. He said he is in opposition to the bill. He
said he has suggestions for the committee. He pointed out that
the intent of the road is to provide support for Prudhoe Bay.
The infrastructure is in place for truckers, including the
pullouts for truckers to chain up their vehicles or take rests.
The winter transportation time is the only time that heavy
winter loads, over a certain weight limit, are allowable. Much
of the road is gravel and allowing additional recreational use
places this use in direct competition with the trucking
industry. The proposed future gas line will demand additional
infrastructure. All the recreational use facilities are not
maintained during the winter. He related that few Alaska State
Troopers are available for wildlife or state highway
enforcement. He was unaware of any medical emergencies except
for the Alyeska Pipeline Services.
2:46:42 PM
MR. STACEY offered his belief that it would be difficult to
handle an accident in an expedient manner in Atigun Pass. He
related that there is not a fiscal note attached to this bill.
He expressed concern over where people would park, and blocking
roadways that require regular inspections of pipe. He stated
this is the most critical time for industry, but not for
recreational use. He requested the committee hold the bill
since the road is needed for the potential gasline and due to a
lack of clear understanding of the impact on industry and due to
the lack of support on the public highway.
2:49:19 PM
GEOFF CARROLL, speaking on behalf of himself, described his
background as a wildlife biologist. He testified in opposition
to HB 267. He related that when the decisions were being made
over whether the "haul road" would be built, the North Slope
residents were assured the road would not be open to the public.
The road was opened to the public. Another promise was that
wildlife resources would be protected by not allowing off-road
vehicles to access the land. This bill poses a threat to that
promise. If the state wants credibility on the North Slope, the
legislature should not pass this bill. Another reason not to
open the Dalton Highway Corridor to snowmachines is that it
would result in user conflicts with local hunters. He recalled
earlier testimony on the Central Arctic herd and offered his
belief that the numbers were overblown. Evidence does not
indicate any overgrazing, he stated. The Teshekpuk Caribou Herd
numbers about 62,000 and provides an important subsistence
resource to the North Slope residents. Most of the range of the
Teshekpuk herd is in the central and western North Slope.
During the period 2002-2008, a substantial portion of the herd
wintered in the Dalton Highway area. Recently, the Board of
Game increased the bag limit in that area from two to five
caribou.
MR. CARROLL predicted that HB 267 passes and the Board of Game
allow hunters to use snowmachines in the area the harvest would
increase substantially. The harvest rate on that herd is high
enough that if harvest increases along the Dalton Highway, it
would decrease the harvest somewhere else. This would create a
major user conflict, pitting sport hunters against North Slope
subsistence hunters. Even if there is no increase in hunting,
increase snowmachine use would impact wildlife. Part of the
strategy for animals in the winter is to become somewhat
sedentary to conserve energy. With increased activity animals
use up their energy reserves and often starve before winter is
over. Muskoxen are particularly vulnerable to this. When
people see muskoxen in the Dalton Highway Corridor, they drive
up for a closer look, which will result in the animals moving
and use up their energy reserves. This activity can scatter the
herd and make them more vulnerable to predation and abandonment
of calves. Muskoxen numbers have seriously declined in recent
years. The last thing the Muskoxen need is harassment,
particularly when the animals should be sedentary. He urged
members to honor their promise, minimize impact on subsistence
hunters and the land, and vote down HB 267.
2:52:56 PM
TODD CLARK spoke in support of HB 267. He pointed out that the
state constitution provides for the development of land and
water for the maximum benefit of the people. The Dalton Highway
Corridor acts as a fence and the general user does not have
access to the millions of acres beyond the corridor. He
suggested viewing the state over a 20 year period. He
speculated that twenty years from now twice as many people will
want to access the state's resources. The state's current mode
seems to be restrictive. This bill would allow an opportunity
to create additional access with minimal impact. He related
that snowmachines are allowed on lands managed by the Department
of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks. He related that
the division seems to agree the impact by snowmachines has been
minimal. Currently, the lands and resources are available to
pilots, mining and other commerce, and people who live in the
Dalton Highway Corridor. However, the land is not available to
the average Alaska resident. He suggested members drive the
highway to sense the vastness of the area. He characterized
residents as essentially "locked out" of the Dalton Highway
Corridor area.
2:55:13 PM
RANDY QUINCY, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
that the AOC consists of 2,300 members in 48 clubs, with over
10,000 collective members. He said that the AOC supports HB
267.
2:55:39 PM
JACK REAKOFF said he is not in support of HB 267. He stated
that the Board of Game wrote a letter in November 2009 in
support of the pre-bill at its meeting in Nome, Alaska. He
stated that "it's a given that there will be hunting pressure
exerted on the resources near the Dalton Highway in the winter.
He recalled a similar bill was previously offered in the Senate.
He further recalled the Senate Resources Committee held hearings
in Fairbanks, Wiseman, and Barrow. He offered that everyone
expressed concern about disturbing or "outright killing of these
animals." As of March 1, the latest Board of Game increased the
bag limit by 150 percent. Twenty-five percent of the hunters
are nonresident hunters. The harvest time has increased by two
months for cow caribou. He said, "I'm very concerned. I'm the
Chair of the Western Interior Regional Advisory Council, Co-
Chair of the Koyukuk River Advisory Committee. The people of
this area are very concerned about the additional harvest
opportunity." He recalled that some people submitted to the
Board of Game that the herd is imminently in danger of crashing.
However, the reality is the ADF&G did not provide any
documentation that the herd is declining. Productivity is high
and two-year old caribou have calves, which he believed is an
indication of a healthy herd. The Central Arctic herd is using
areas on the south side of the Brooks Range that has not been
used by caribou in 35 years. There are lots of resources
available for the caribou to use. The reality is the five
caribou limit is allocated for nonresident hunters. He
anticipated a huge increase by non-Alaskans.
MR. REAKOFF offered his belief that this bill is not for
residents. Currently, the area experiences a high-level of
nonresident using boats, dog teams, and aircraft. The Mulchatna
Caribou herd, with primary access by aircraft access went from
200,000 to 28,000 animals over a 12-year period. This
represents an 86 percent decline, while the wolf population had
one adult wolf per 100 cows. The herd did not have any breeding
capacity, he stated. Snowmachine access is so efficient that it
would allow access to cow caribou as they cross over the Brooks
Range and move across the coastal plain since the area does not
"break up" until mid-May. Thus, year-round hunting access to
cow caribou would subject the caribou to high harvest. He
offered his belief that snowmachine access would need to be
curtailed in a short time period. He said, "Caribou do not
recover."
2:59:34 PM
MR. REAKOFF stated the caribou cannot sustain this level of
harvest. Dall Sheep have critical wintering habitat and high
marking on the sides of the mountains. He predicted that
"chasing Dall Sheep off their wintering habitats will kill the
Dall Sheep." This is the most northerly wild sheep population
in the world. The oil industry will be required to have
additional restrictions once the herd is decimated. The oil
industry has enjoyed the growing population of caribou, which
implied that the industry could cohabitate with the resource.
The reality is once this herd is decimated by overharvest,
encouraged by snowmachine access, the industry will incur
additional expenses. This bill basically is fraught with
numerous problems, he stated. He suggested that ice truckers
encounter steep roads and pickups with heavy trailers will
inevitably jackknife and have accidents. He said, "There will
need to be large fiscal note attached to the bill for [Emergency
Medical Services] EMS, additional troopers." He stated that the
[AST] Trooper at Coldfoot has not been present since September,
yet the area encompasses a 78,000 square miles. He offered that
currently the AST does not have a Trooper present. He stated
that additional funding would be needed for AST, a MEDIVAC
helicopter, and the bill is flawed. He offered his belief that
the entire caribou harvest was 2,000, including the village
harvest. He cautioned that the five caribou limit will attract
hundreds of nonresident hunters and air carriers to support
their access.
MR. REAKOFF said, "The reality is this bill would have huge
detrimental effects to the caribou herds and the managers and
people of Alaska will be looked at as slaughterers of the
resource that inhabits the Arctic Coastal Plain, which is under
high spotlight." He urged members not to adopt HB 267. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, he stated that he is from Wiseman,
Alaska, half-way between Fairbanks and Prudhoe Bay. He stated
he has lived in the Central Brooks Range since before the Dalton
Highway was built. He said, "I'm very concerned as an Alaskan
resident that we are reallocating our resource to nonresidents
and not actually doing what this bill is proposing to do."
3:03:26 PM
NICOLE FLIPS stated that she is property owner in Wiseman, but
her primary residence is in Fairbanks. She said she hunts for
Dall Sheep and caribou outside the Dalton Highway Corridor by
foot and dog team. There is no need to change the law as it is
currently written prohibiting off-road vehicles on the land in
the Dalton Highway Corridor. She said, "Only the lazy and
uninspired would claim the current law denies their access to
the public lands along the Dalton." She asked members to
consider the overwhelming evidence that this bill will threaten
the sensitive wildlife and subsistence uses along the Dalton
Highway Corridor. She asked members to also consider that
allowing snowmachines along the Dalton Highway Corridor will
cost money through the increased demand and need for emergency
services, public safety, and wildlife protection. Secondly,
allowing snowmachines in the Dalton Highway Corridor will
increase accidents, medical emergencies, search and rescue
operations, and trespass. She expressed concern over the
potential for increased vandalism of mining equipment, private
property, tourism facilities, oil company facilities, and
university research facilities. She reiterated that emergency
services do not currently exist. Finally, allowing snowmachines
in the Dalton Highway Corridor will require road improvements,
pullouts, outhouses, and trash receptacles. She asked for the
fiscal note to reflect the impact that HB 267 will have on the
local residents, businesses, and miners who are left insecure
and unsafe. She concluded, "I want myself and my property
protected."
CHAIR P. WILSON related that several committee members traveled
on the Dalton Highway this summer. She explained that members
rode in the commercial trucks. She stated that she could not
imagine traveling the Dalton Highway in the winter. She agreed
the pullouts are necessary for emergency purposes.
[HB 267 was held over.]
3:07:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB267 sponsor stmt TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| hb 267 backup TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/16/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB366 Backup TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 366 |
| HB366 Sectional TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 366 |
| HB366 Sponsor strmt TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 366 |
| HB354 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 354 |
| HB354 Sponsor Statement TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 354 |
| HB354 Sponsor Statement TRA.pdf |
HTRA 3/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 354 |