02/21/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB271 | |
| HB258 | |
| HB270 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2012
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to the state highway system and commercial
motor vehicle requirements."
- MOVED CSHB 271(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 258
"An Act directing the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to develop and implement standards and operating
procedures allowing for the use in the construction and
maintenance of transportation projects and public facilities and
in the construction of projects by public and private entities
of gravel or aggregate materials that contain a limited amount
of naturally occurring asbestos, and authorizing use on an
interim basis of those materials for certain transportation
projects and public facilities; relating to certain claims
arising out of or in connection with the use of gravel or
aggregate materials containing a limited amount of naturally
occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 270
"An Act requiring the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to require airports to post warning signs outside of
security screening areas warning passengers that they are
subject to searches of their bodies by physical touching and by
electronic devices that emit radiation."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 271
SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER, PRUITT
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) TRA
02/21/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 258
SHORT TITLE: NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) TRA, FIN
02/21/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 270
SHORT TITLE: WARNING OF AIRPORT EXAMS/SCANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CISSNA, GRUENBERG, TUCK
01/17/12 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/12
01/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/17/12 (H) TRA, FIN
02/21/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 271 as prime sponsor of the
bill.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the prime sponsor of
HB 271, Representative Wes Keller.
DAN BREEDEN, Director
Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 271.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association (ATA), Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 271.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 258 as the sponsor of the
bill.
BRODIE ANDERSON, Staff
Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 258.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 258.
ALICE EDWARDS, Director
Division of Air Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 258.
SCOTT JONES, Vice Mayor
City of Ambler
Ambler, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 258.
UKALLAYSAAQ OKLEASIK, Planning Director
Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB)
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on HB 258.
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, Corporate and Public Policy Liaison
NANA Regional Corporation (NANA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 258.
LANCE MILLER, Vice President
NANA Regional Corporation (NANA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 258.
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 270.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:08:23 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Representatives
Gruenberg, Petersen, Munoz, Feige, and P. Wilson were present at
the call to order. Representative Pruitt arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
1:08:53 PM
HB 271-COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS
1:09:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the state highway
system and commercial motor vehicle requirements."
1:09:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
HB 271 will expand the gross vehicle rate (GVR) weight rating
from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds to allow newer pickups to operate
without being considered commercial vehicles. As an aside, he
mentioned he holds a commercial vehicle license. He pointed out
that newer pickups and the GVR is over the 10,000 pound limit
for noncommercial vehicles. He related that the Alaska Trucking
Association (ATA) suggested these changes and the bill received
favorable comments thus far. He has also worked with the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) on the
matter.
1:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE Munoz moved the proposed Committee Substitute
(CS) for HB 271, labeled 27-LS1158\I, Martin, 2/10/12, as the
work draft. There being no objection, Version I was before the
committee.
1:11:35 PM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, stated that the
current law was written in 1999 at a time when pickup trucks
were smaller. He related that some pickup trucks are used as
pilot trucks and this bill would allow them to include a "one-
ton dually," which a vehicle with an extra set of rear tires, in
a noncommercial status. These dual-wheel vehicles put more tire
on the road to spread out the weight so there is less wear and
tear on the roads. He admitted while is not an expert on
trucking that several testifiers are present to answer
questions.
1:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to address any cost savings.
MR. POUND deferred to the DOT&PF to address any cost savings.
He reported that many individuals driving pilot cars are under
18 years of age and are not eligible for commercial drivers'
licenses. This bill would allow them to drive one-ton vehicles
while still working towards their commercial vehicle
certification. He suggested that sometimes workers on
construction sites are asked to run errands such as to pick up
something at a lumber yard and this will allow them to do so.
1:14:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for clarification on the changes
contained in Version I.
MR. POUND answered the primary change made was to remove
language that pertained to federal hazardous materials that the
state must comply with [under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (HMTA)], often referred to as HAZMAT.
1:14:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding one reason the
HAZMAT placards are placed on vehicles is to notify first
responders of the impending issue of hazardous materials. He
asked for any compelling reason to remove this requirement.
MR. POUND answered that the placards are federally managed but
are state inspected.
1:15:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, which read, "(A) used
to transport passengers or property for intrastate commercial
purposes;" which relates to commercial vehicles. He asked how
this language would apply to interstate commercial purposes and
whether this vehicle would be considered a commercial vehicle.
MR. POUND offered his belief that it would not be considered a
commercial vehicle if the vehicle is under 14,000 pounds. He
suggested the same rules would apply to any vehicle under 14,000
pounds GVW.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for an explanation of adding the
phrase. He referred back to page 3, line 1, to the language
that increases the weight from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds.
DAN BREEDEN, Director, Division of Measurement Standards &
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), responded that the bill would
deregulate the operations in intrastate commerce under those
specific rules. He said that all federal rules would apply as
usual to any interstate commerce.
1:17:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that the intent
of HB 271 is to allow F-350 trucks normally driven as personal
vehicles to be used on construction sites. He questioned
whether that goal can be accomplished simply by changing the
weight requirements. He further questioned whether a vehicle
would be considered a private noncommercial vehicle based solely
on the vehicle weight falling below 14,000 pounds.
MR. BREEDEN answered that the minimum weight is being raised
from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds for intrastate commerce to
accommodate and not regulate those vehicles. The division has
previously treated commercial vehicles the same whether they
were used for interstate or intrastate purposes. He explained
that currently drivers under 18 years of age are not allowed to
operate commercial vehicles. He added that other requirements,
such as rules associated with hours of service would also apply;
however, it would be unacceptable to regulate interstate
commerce due to the federal requirements. He characterized the
federal regulations as being overreaching ones.
1:18:37 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON paraphrased that in Alaska the state would raise
the standard for younger drivers and allows them to use vehicles
that weigh more than 10,000 pounds, but limited to 14,000 pounds
or less; however, federal rules would continue to apply for
interstate use.
MR. BREEDEN concurred.
1:19:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired as to whether HAZMAT rules would
apply to commercial vehicles used in intrastate commerce.
MR. BREEDEN answered absolutely yes. The HAZMAT rules would
apply to any HAZMAT transport regardless of the size or weight
of the vehicle. He stated that the federal interstate rules
would also apply since HAZMAT is a federal program. He
explained that the DOT&PF adopts and enforces the federal law.
He reiterated that the federal law applies with respect to
HAZMAT.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, line 9, and also to
page 3, lines 4-7 of the bill. He questioned the reason to
include this specific language in statute.
MR. BREEDEN responded that the language is redundant. The rule
applies without this added statutory language so the language
was removed for clarity.
1:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled earlier testimony that people
under the ages of 18 were driving pilot cars. He said based on
his experience of having hired numerous drivers in his business
career that the first requirement is drivers must be 18 years or
older in order to obtain insurance coverage. He questioned the
safety factors of using drivers under the age of 18 to operate
pilot vehicles, assuming the vehicles following the pilot
vehicle are carrying extremely large loads and are ones that
will require oversize permits.
MR. POUND was aware some drivers under the age 18 hold a
commercial driver's license (CDL) and operate pilot vehicles.
He offered his belief that the CDL requirement "kicks in" at
10,000 pounds. He suggested it was possible for someone to
drive a pilot vehicle, but not obtain a CDL to drive a truck.
1:22:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled earlier testimony with respect
to less road wear by trucks. He was unsure of the context.
MR. POUND clarified that he was referring to dual-wheel trucks
and not the smaller F-110 trucks.
1:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 3 and to the
definition. He expressed concern that this language would
remove the authority of the state to inspect vehicles under this
section involved in interstate commerce.
MR. BREEDEN responded that the interstate regulations are
adopted in 17 AAC, Chapter 25. He explained that the DOT&PF
adopts these federal regulations by reference so all the rules
would apply, but this section would eliminate the state's
oversight of intrastate operations for vehicles weighing less
than 14,000 pounds.
1:24:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether this section would only apply
to Title 19, but would not apply to Title 17.
MR. BREEDEN asked for clarification on the question.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, beginning on line 24,
and asked whether the state has the authority to inspect
interstate commerce other than in Title 19.
MR. BREEDEN answered yes. He referred to the Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC) Title 17, which adopts the interstate
requirements under 49 CFR 300-399, almost entirely.
1:25:03 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), Inc., stated the ATA is a statewide organization that
represents the interests of nearly 200 member companies from
Barrow to Ketchikan. He related that freight movement
represents a large segment of the state's economy and affects
everyone each and every day. He said, "The simple truth is that
if you got it, a truck brought it." He also said that as
vehicles have gotten larger they now fall under the current
definition of intrastate commercial motor vehicles, which have
historically not been considered commercial vehicles, such as
pickup trucks, small step vans, and small trailers. Version I
would change the definition of intrastate commercial vehicles to
those vehicles under 14,000 pounds to reduce the regulation.
This bill is aimed at small contractors, such as small delivery
vehicles, vans, small step vans, and trailers. He related one
of the ATA's legislative priorities is to change the definition
of intrastate commercial vehicle to reduce the regulatory burden
on small business. He elaborated that for purposes of
commercial vehicle regulation and inspection Version I would
raise the weight threshold on intrastate commercial vehicles
from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds GVW rating for inspection and
safety regulation purposes.
MR. THOMPSON said HB 271 would affect small contractors, such as
lawn care workers, carpenters, plumbing and heating
professionals, small delivery vehicles, and pilot cars who use
those types of vehicles. Pickup trucks and small step-vans are
getting larger and heavier and have been exceeding the current
10,000 pounds GVW rating and by definition are designated as
commercial vehicles for safety and inspection purposes. Pilot
cars are vehicles that accompany oversize load to serve as an
extension of the warning system for oversize loads. Their work
is almost always designated as intrastate commerce and would
fall under the bill. He related that the "bump" over the 10,000
mark requires drivers to obtain medical certification, complete
daily vehicle inspection reports, perform annual inspections,
and submit several other items to DOT&PF for compliance.
Additionally, vehicles over the 10,000 pound threshold are also
subject to federal regulations adopted into the DOT&PF's Alaska
Administrative Code. This bill would exclude commercial
vehicles no more than 14,000 pounds GVW rating from unnecessary
regulation. This bill would not change the commercial status of
intrastate vehicles for the purposes of registration with the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Further, this bill has no
fiscal impact on the state. He emphasized that these vehicles
do not need this level of scrutiny since they typically operate
in a limited geographical area and are not subject to the wear
and tear that other larger commercial vehicles experience. He
urged members to act favorably on this bill.
1:28:43 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked him to elaborate on any costs associated
with the DOT&PF's requirements.
MR. THOMPSON acknowledged that some costs are associated with
acquiring forms, but not for registering with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to obtain a DOT number.
Additionally, other regulations require annual reporting on the
number of vehicles, drivers, and insurance updates. These
inspections can be time-consuming, taking anywhere from 5 to 15
minutes each day to inspect a vehicle, prepare and submit the
necessary reports to the dispatcher or management of the
company. Those forms must be held and are subject to audits.
Further, annual medical certifications are also required. Each
of these requirements has associated costs. The ATA finds these
requirements unnecessary regulation and this bill will lighten
the burden on small businesses and pilot car operators.
1:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked when a commercial vehicle is
required to submit to weight scales.
MR. THOMPSON answered that currently commercial vehicles
weighing 10,000 pounds must submit to weigh scales. He stated
that under this bill a 14,000 pound noncommercial vehicle would
not be required to stop at a weigh station.
1:31:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted that having a lower weight limit for
noncommercial vehicles will affect a significant number of
people, including independent delivery drivers. He emphasized
that it is time consuming for these vehicles to submit to weigh
stations. He related a scenario in which a small delivery van
may be subjected to a 5-45 minute delay in order to stop at a
weigh station. Additionally, some employees of smaller
companies may only be employed for six months, but must submit
to the requirements for commercial vehicle drivers. He offered
his belief that this bill will help small business owners and
independent operators who should not be subjected to the added
requirements. He suggested improved technology of the vehicles
and what they can withstand has also increased.
1:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this is a good bill and he is a
cosponsor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for DOT&PF's position on the bill.
MR. BREEDEN responded that the DOT&PF is very much in favor of
the bill as written.
1:33:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the bill title, which
relates to the state highway system. He suggested the committee
may wish to tighten the title. He asked whether the sponsor
would agree to an amendment.
MR. POUND answered that the sponsor would have no problem
tightening the title.
1:35:33 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 271.
1:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment 1, to narrow the title as narrowly as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested adding language to the existing
title, "and the weight threshold limits for commercial motor
vehicles."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that the specific language
would suffice for the second half of the title, but he remained
concerned that the first half of the title is broad enough to
allow activities such as naming bridges, which he found as
acceptable language. He asked the committee to allow the bill
drafters to develop language to tighten the title.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 271, Version 27-LS1158\I, Martin,
2/10/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 271(TRA) was reported from the House
Transportation Standing Committee.
1:37:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.
HB 258-NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
1:38:52 PM
CHAIR P. WLSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 258, "An Act directing the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to develop and implement
standards and operating procedures allowing for the use in the
construction and maintenance of transportation projects and
public facilities and in the construction of projects by public
and private entities of gravel or aggregate materials that
contain a limited amount of naturally occurring asbestos, and
authorizing use on an interim basis of those materials for
certain transportation projects and public facilities; relating
to certain claims arising out of or in connection with the use
of gravel or aggregate materials containing a limited amount of
naturally occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective
date."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 258, Version 27-LS0400\E,
Nauman, 2/19/12, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purpose of discussion.
1:39:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is found in several
areas of the state. He related that while ways to mitigate the
problems exist, NOA has been a recurring problem in the upper
Kobuk communities of Ambler and Kobuk. He referred to a notice
in committee members' packets from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division, Alaska region (FAA), dated
August, 15, 2011. A sentence under an Ambler airport project
read, as follows, "Project delayed until a suitable material
source can be found that does not contain asbestos." The letter
refers to the Ambler Airport, and the communities have not been
able to "turn a shovel" on capital projects for several years.
He explained that a draft bill sought to rectify this, but
unfortunately the issues were not resolved. He further
explained that he has worked with DOT&PF and Legislative Legal
in hopes to remedy the situation. He highlighted that some land
ownership issues make this problem unique, but the issue is that
asbestos is found in its naturally occurring state and dust is
kicked up every time an airplane lands or takes off. Thus
communities cannot fix water and sewer systems, build housing
projects, remedy school playground issues, repair a bridge that
is close to collapse, or repair their airport. Normally,
obtaining capital projects for the community means people can
work and provide for their families, which has not has not been
the case in Ambler. Additionally, a school construction project
in Kobuk has been hampered. He concluded that he has worked
with the administration to find remedies for the issue of using
NOA.
1:43:14 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the NOA is causing health problems
in the community.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE answered he was unaware of any health
related impacts that have occurred. He recalled some people
were surveyed several years ago. He further recalled the
results were "fairly clean" except for people with issues such
as tobacco use. He indicated that NOA use has become
problematic in terms of how it is regulated by the state.
1:44:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that this bill does not have a
further referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He
said the bill contains extensive tort immunity sections. He
expressed concern that the immunity granted may be broader than
necessary. He recalled a case in which a man lost his thumb.
He referred generally to page 3, line 15, through page 4, line
11, to Section 2. He then referred more specifically to page 3,
line 27, and read, "for an act or omission occurring in the
course of extracting, supplying, transporting, or using
gravel..." He related a scenario in which a person employed by
a trucking company drives drunk and hits someone. He expressed
concern that this language may immunize the driver. He asked to
consider this matter further.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE offered his belief this specific section
has been thoroughly reviewed.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. Version E was
before the committee.
1:47:54 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced himself.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, introduced herself.
1:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for details on the immunity
section and expressed his concerned about potential overreach of
immunity.
MS. NAUMAN offered a sectional analysis and explained that
Section 1 of the bill contains legislative findings and purpose
statements to explain and support the measure.
MS. NAUMAN related that Section 2 of the bill creates immunity
sections that Representative Gruenberg previously mentioned
1:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for further discussion on the
immunity section.
MS. NAUMAN explained that the immunity section basically
forecloses a suit against a defendant on the basis of ownership
of land or in the course of extracting or supplying,
transporting or using gravel or other aggregate material
containing NOA less than .025 percent as long as those actions
or omissions are within the requirements of AS 18.31.250, the
section for private contractors, and AS 44.42.410(b), which
pertains to the requirements for public construction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to reserve his questions on
immunity.
1:51:54 PM
MS. NAUMAN referred to subsection (c), which would foreclose a
suit against the state in the course of approving or creating
the monitoring and mitigating plan developed under this bill.
1:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 4, line 4, of Version
E, to subsection (b). He said the key phrase is "direct control
or responsibility." He commented that this would seem to limit
possible defendants. He asked for clarification of who would be
the possible defendants with direct control and those without
direct control. He further asked which class of people would be
eliminated by the term "direct control." He recalled a bill he
currently has before the legislature that pertains to anti-trust
and to those directly and indirectly damaged. He characterized
this area as a big issue. He explained that his bill pertains
to classes of plaintiffs while HB 258 pertains to classes of
defendants.
MS. NAUMAN answered that subsection (b) describes who can be
sued over non-compliance of land for both the site use plan and
the monitoring mitigation plans. She said a suit can only be
brought for noncompliance against essentially the person who has
primary control over that plan and some control over
construction site.
1:54:40 PM
MR. ANDERSON explained that the site-specific plan identifies
actions from the extraction to the construction plan, chain of
the construction project and applies to extractors,
transporters, drivers, and construction workers for the project.
This subsection was developed in order to preserve immunity for
extractors and transporters who performed adequately, even when
a construction contractor did not. Thus, if he is correct, the
immunity would not apply to anyone in noncompliance, or anyone
who doesn't follow the rules.
MS. NAUMAN agreed.
1:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related a scenario in which someone
knowingly and recklessly is aware that the rules are not being
followed, which creates a hazardous condition and causes an
injury. He questioned whether the specific person, who would
normally quite culpable, is also being immunized.
MS. NAUMAN related her understanding that is how this bill
functions. She explained the person held responsible is the
person who has responsibility over the compliance requirements
set out in the permitting sections of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that AS
18.31.250 and AS 44.42.410(b) pertains to permitting statutes.
He referred to page 3, lines 27-28, "...occurring in the course
of extracting, supplying, transporting, or using gravel..." He
related a scenario in which someone negligently manufactures
earth moving equipment without providing adequate safety
mechanisms so subsequently someone is injured. He questioned
whether this provision would also immunize the caterpillar
company or the company that manufactured the equipment.
MS. NAUMAN said her interpretation is different. She explained
that an act or omission must be in compliance with the
permitting requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out his scenario, assumes that
the permitting was done properly, but the earth moving equipment
had a bolt loose and someone lost his/her hand. He said it
seemed that this provision would provide immunity even if
everyone operated in good faith. He further asked whether the
language would also provide immunity to the manufacturer.
MS. NAUMAN said she does not believe that immunity would be
extended in that circumstance because the action must be an act
or omission in compliance with the requirements of the
permitting section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to hold further questions until
those sections were covered.
1:59:42 PM
MS. NAUMAN turned to the sectional analysis and related that
Section 3 adds AS 18.31.250 to describe how a private person may
qualify for immunity through the permitting requirement.
MS. NAUMAN stated that Section 4 adds many new sections to AS
44.42.400, which is the DOT&PF section.
MR. ANDERSON remarked that the sponsor has worked with the
administration and in doing so has strengthened the proposed
program. Initially, the program was open-ended and would have
required each region to create its own program. This bill would
create one position in the DOT&PF Commissioner's office that
will perform preliminary work, create a database for known NOA
sites, and identify gravel near NOA sites. He commented that
the NOA sites could include communities such as Juneau, which
has many sources of clean gravel, but also has NOA.
MR. ANDERSON explained the process, including that posting the
NOA sites in the database allows the DOT&PF to identify NOA
sites for planning purposes, and would anticipate projects in
those regions to allow communities to stockpile clean gravel.
The sites would be published on the DOT&PF's website.
Additionally, the DOT&PF would work in conjunction with other
departments to cover any human health concerns. He related the
administration suggested this approach to consolidate and
catalog.
2:03:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he did not see any cause of
action against the entity that owned the property or against the
entity doing extraction; however, he could envision some
organization sued in direct compliance and under the immunity
section could not take action against the equipment manufacturer
for indemnification or third party liability. He stressed that
not only would the plaintiff be prevented, but the defendant
would also be prevented from seeking reimbursement for the
person who is truly at fault.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that his issue was a
legal issue separate from the NOA issue.
2:04:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 3, line 18, of Version E,
to subsection (a), and read, "A civil action or claim for
damages or costs alleging as asbestos-related death, injury,
illness, or disability or alleging asbestos-related property
damage...." He related his understanding that the intent is to
prevent the company using NOA on projects from being held liable
if someone has an asbestos-related illness. He questioned how
someone losing a thumb or other injury, resulting from
carelessness or not following a procedure or the design of the
equipment would have anything to do with asbestos. He inquired
as to whether this subsection would address the issue.
2:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that Representative Feige
made an excellent point, but the term "asbestos related" is not
defined. He said that a lawyer would try to make that as broad
as possible. He suggested defining the term so that not all
asbestos related illnesses are exempted. He related a scenario
in which workers must wear protective masks, but the masks are
defectively manufactured so the workers develop mesothelioma
cancer. He said he was unsure that immunity should cover these
types of problems. He characterized the bill as a good bill,
which could get delayed due to difficult policy legal questions
related to immunity.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested he may wish to work on the immunity
issues with Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON mentioned that the companion bill to HB 258 also
has a referral to the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee. He
stressed that immunity has been an issue from the start and the
sponsor shares his concern.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed he also shares the concern.
2:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE understood several types of asbestos and
forms exist, including long and short fiber asbestos. He said
that one type causes mesothelioma. He offered his belief that
the definition of NOA refers to different mineral types. He
identified part of issue as the loose definition of asbestos
that is damaging. He asked whether the definition for the
asbestos of the type that is problematic to health could be
tightened up.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he has held discussions with DOT&PF
today on the definition of asbestos and the sponsor has been
considering adding a second definition for asbestos. He agreed
the definitions could be tightened up.
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN wondered if Alaska is only place that
has NOA, and if not, how other states and municipalities have
addressed the issue.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that other jurisdictions already have
built their roads.
MR. ANDERSON answered that California and Virginia have NOA
programs including regulations to monitor use of any NOA. He
recalled that 12 other states are currently considering adopting
similar regulations.
2:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if possible to look at other
legislatures' models in terms of culpability and perhaps not
have to reinvent the wheel.
MR. ANDERSON agreed. He offered that a substantial amount of
the language in the bill comes from California's regulations.
He acknowledged that HB 258 contains an expanded immunity
section. He pointed out that Ambler has some gravel which may
contain NOA. The sponsor also encourages the proper use of
gravel containing NOA. He offered to research how other states
handle NOA.
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it would truncate his questions,
if the bill had a House Judiciary Committee referral. He
related his understanding that this bill seems like good idea,
but the bill raises issues not normally considered in this
committee. He reiterated that he did not have problems with the
concept of the bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that the liability issues are not usually
discussed in this committee.
2:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether NOA is in the dust in the
region and for any health issues identified in the community.
MR. ANDERSON answered that NOA exists in Ambler, and gravel has
been used in prior construction projects, but at the time the
projects were developed testing was not being conducted and
regulations did not exist. He offered his belief that since NOA
exists he assumes NOA also existed when the projects were built.
He referenced the public health study Representative Joule
mentioned earlier.
2:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ questioned whether the changes that make
the materials unacceptable were due to federal or state law.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he was unsure, but now that testing
can be done and NOA has been discovered in the communities that
they are prohibited from using it.
2:16:15 PM
MS. NAUMAN pointed out that gravel containing NOA can be used,
but it creates open liability for suits related to people
contracting diseases such as mesothelioma. This bill would
prevent that risk by foreclosing the suit on the basis of
asbestos related illness.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on whether lawsuits
would be prevented if everyone in the community contracted
mesothelioma.
MS. NAUMAN offered her belief if all of the actions were in
compliance with the permitting requirements that would be the
case.
2:17:47 PM
ALICE EDWARDS, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC0, stated that the department has
coordinated with other agencies and the sponsor on HB 258. She
highlighted that the department's primary concern is to try to
mitigate any public health hazards which result from being
exposed to the NOA materials used in these projects. She
acknowledged that lots of NOA exists and has been used in these
communities. The Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) has conducted studies and can better address the issues.
MS. EDWARDS said that the primary health impacts are those from
exposure to inhaled asbestos fibers. She explained that when
asbestos materials are used on road surfaces, dust is kicked up,
and people can inhale it. She related her understanding there
is no safe level for contact with asbestos so people in these
communities are being exposed to it from dust and use of NOA
gravel.
2:19:41 PM
MS. EDWARDS deferred to public health, but said she was not
aware of any actual cases of health concerns that have occurred
as a result of the exposures; however, impacts that may occur
over a lifetime so some cancers or diseases may not show up for
a long time.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how long the community has been there.
MS. EDWARDS said she did not know.
2:20:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON surmised that if it were harmful that the health
concerns should have been found in the elderly.
MS. EDWARDS pointed out that some populations are small, but
deferred to DHSS to better answer exposure risks. She related
her understanding that very small exposures can lead to
asbestos-related diseases as well as high exposures for people
who have worked in industries that have been exposed to
asbestos-related materials. In response to a question, she
answered she believed there are differences in the types and
forms of asbestos, such as short versus long fibers in terms of
health risks they pose.
2:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related his understanding that the
division has performed air quality testing and has developed
baseline data. He suggested if this bill passed and NOA was
used and suddenly breathing problems or other health issues
arose that the department would know how much additional
asbestos was added.
MS. EDWARDS agreed air monitoring was done but she was uncertain
whether the division could detect changes. She acknowledged
some baseline work has been performed, including the EPA
conducting air sampling. The DEC has looked at dust and
particulate matter for asbestos and prior health studies, which
provide a baseline. However, she was unsure whether the
division would be able to distinguish between new or old
asbestos sources, and if it would be possible to separate them.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the exposure would be higher
during construction.
2:22:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 11-15,
related to federal preemption. He read, "...fibers are a
significant threat...and are subject to close regulations by
federal and state authorities...." He referred to the federal
sites Clean Air Act (CAA) and Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). He related his understanding that these laws pertain to
one issue, which is use of materials containing NOA in
construction projects. He asked whether Ms. Nauman has
researched the federal regulations to the extent that she could
answer whether any constitutional issues exist with respect to
the indirect violations of the interstate commerce clause or the
supremacy clause due to the close regulation by federal
authority.
MS. NAUMAN offered to further research this. She related her
understanding is that the aforementioned acts refer to asbestos
which is not naturally occurring. She said that would explain
the second clause, which read "...use of materials containing
naturally occurring asbestos in construction projects may be
regulated by states;".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, assuming she was correct, inquired as
to whether any other federal regulations that may be involved.
He asked to hear from any of the departments if they were aware
of any federal issues.
2:26:04 PM
MS. NAUMAN turned to the sectional analysis. She related that
Sections 5 and 6 are temporary provisions to help bridge the gap
since this bill has an immediate effective date. She stated
that Section 6 outlines the testing method.
2:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that he serves on a Council
of State Governments' committee on suggested legislation. He
referred to Section 6 of Version E, to page 10, lines 22-30. He
explained that this establishes that until DOT&PF adopts the
method of bulk testing that the department shall use California
Air Resources Board Method 435 as the basis for determining the
asbestos content. He was aware some people expressed concern
that Alaska may be deferring its regulatory authority. He
recalled that other states expressed similar concerns. He
merely pointed out that the deferral authority is in this bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that this provision would be
temporary so she said she was not concerned.
2:28:42 PM
SCOTT JONES, Vice Mayor, City of Ambler, stated that he has been
the mayor for five or six years. He has lived in Ambler since
the 1970s. He said he has heard so many questions on the
asbestos issue today. He related his understanding that it
takes 25-40 years for asbestos to affect health. He reported
that about 20 people in past 20-25 years have had respiratory
issues, but these people did not specify whether they were
smokers. He pointed out that smokers are 80-100 times more
susceptible to respiratory problems than anyone exposed to NOA.
MR. JONES said he was involved in August 2007 with an airport
rehabilitation during which Nortech Environmental Engineering,
Health and Safety (NORTECH) tested operators and airport workers
involved with handling NOA, but the results did not show any
significant impact. He recalled other testing has been done by
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). He detailed
the monitoring and protective measures taken during airport
rehabilitation. He reported that there are seven types of
asbestos consisting of short and long fiber materials. The long
fiber asbestos does not pose a problem until it is crushed or
ground and becomes airborne. He also recalled comments made by
one tester during the mid-1990s that there was so much dust in
Ambler the equipment could not get a reading on the asbestos.
He further recalled the findings were that the silt dust
constituted more of a health risk than NOA. He expressed
concern over the committee's discussions to get the details
right while nine people live in 2-bedroom houses in Ambler. He
stated that no hew houses have been built since the 1990s due to
the asbestos and requirements of all federal monies.
2:33:27 PM
MR. JONES related that Ambler obtained a special waiver from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) due to the dust problem in
Ambler. He reported that it took a coordinated effort between
NANA Regional Corporation, the DOT&PF, and Ambler to make the
airport project happen. He identified the biggest problem has
been a lack of regulations. He said California has all seven
types of asbestos, but has developed regulations to allow them
to use the material and mitigate the dust problems. He urged
people to adopt rules, regulations, and procedures. He
described the worst of the dust occurs during June, July,
August, and September, but dust is less of a problem the rest of
the year and it is not an issue when it rains or snows.
2:35:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the most recent census figures.
MR. JONES answered the population is 266.
CHAIR P. WILSON inquired as to the percentage of smokers.
MR. JONES answered that smoking is still pretty common. He
estimated about 25 percent of the population are smokers.
2:36:17 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if he has ever considered moving.
MR. JONES answered no.
2:36:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the 14th Alaska State
Legislature adopted statutes related to removing asbestos from
schools, including a training program. He suggested the
community may wish to look at the training aspects of that
specific program.
MR. ANDERSON admitted he was not aware of the statute, will look
into the program. He offered to report back to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the program was not done
at state expense.
2:37:49 PM
UKALLAYSAAQ OKLEASIK, Planning Director, City of Ambler stated
that Ambler is a very beautiful community south of Brooks Range
and Noatak National Preserve along the Kobuk River. He
characterized it as a wonderful place to live. Historically,
the area was identified as an asbestos resource and in the 1940s
the Arctic Circle Exploration Company mined. Mining was
discontinued during WWII and due to a decline in asbestos uses.
He related that asbestos is a high quality resource associated
with jade and two local mountains are called Jade and Asbestos
Mountains. In 2003, concerns were raised by the community and
the Maniiliq Association due to the dust. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry conducted an investigation and
published a report in 2007 which confirmed NOA was found in the
gravel. The NWAB supports HB 258. He explained that the
assembly will hear a resolution later this month. He said a lot
is at stake for the villages along the Kobuk River, not just
Ambler, but potentially in Kobuk village with new school
construction and NOA issues. Other communities such as
Shungnak, Juneau, and Fairbanks in Alaska also have NOA issues.
He explained that lots of studies have been conducted including
studies performed by the DOT&PF since 2003, which identified
problems and recommendations to use NOA safely. He referred to
a September 2009 Nortech report that outlined recommendations
based on the experience and policies of other states including
California and Virginia.
2:41:05 PM
MR. OKLEASIK stated that the issue is holding up community
development at the airport, road maintenance, new housing, water
and sewer. He pointed out the necessity to replace gravel just
to maintain their system. He highlighted that beach and river
erosion projects have also been put on hold. He concluded that
the community is really suffering since its infrastructure is on
hold. He offered his belief that the bill provides a very easy
solution to allow work with NOA and would allow community
development to happen.
2:42:21 PM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, Corporate and Public Policy Liaison, NANA
Regional Corporation (NANA), stated that NANA supports this
bill. She explained that about $10 million in projects are on
hold due to NOA issues, but the projects need to move forward.
She offered that the Northwest Arctic Leadership Team,
consisting of leadership of the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB),
the NWAB School District, Maniilaq Association, which is the
tribal organization, and NANA all support the bill. She
reiterated that the bill has widespread community support,
including Ambler. She reported that NANA is a large land owner
in the region and owns about 38,000 square miles including
gravel resources.
2:44:14 PM
LANCE MILLER, Vice President, NANA Regional Corporation (NANA)
stated that the iron rich rocks have existed for quite a while.
He related that these rocks contain various asbestos minerals
found throughout the Brooks Range and Southeast Alaska. In
response to Representative Feige, he reported that the NOA type
is chrysotile, which is the least toxic type of asbestos.
However, from the perspective of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), it doesn't matter since it is an asbestos form of
mineral. He reiterated that about $10 million in projects are
on hold. He said Ambler is relatively new village, but people
have been up along the river for upwards of 10,000 years. Some
of the highest concentrations of asbestos are in the gravel bars
right in front of Ambler since asbestos is deposited as part of
a winnowing effect. He recalled a reference to a health study
which did not find any evidence of mesothelioma. He agreed
exposure presents a good question, but pointed out that NOA has
been around for a long time and people have been breathing it.
He asked to have NANA on record as supporting the bill to move
the projects forward. He emphasized that a lack of legislation
presents an issue for landowners. He acknowledged some critical
airport emergency issues need to move forward. In response to a
question, he agreed he would be available to answer questions.
[HB 258 was held over.]
2:48:09 PM
HB 270-WARNING OF AIRPORT EXAMS/SCANS
2:48:18 PM
CHAIR P. WLSON announced that the final order of business would
be, HOUSE BILL NO. 270, "An Act requiring the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to require airports to post
warning signs outside of security screening areas warning
passengers that they are subject to searches of their bodies by
physical touching and by electronic devices that emit
radiation."
2:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HB 270 is an important bill in terms of screening processes
at Alaska's airports. In December 2011, Alaska used a system of
procedures without using a scanner, which included performing
invasive examinations to ensure public safety on flights. Prior
to the physical screening procedures, the airports used metal
detectors, which were less effective in detecting items not
allowed on airplanes. She related her understanding that the
new scanner does not view the body as a naked body, since the
device shows a symbol and the location of something that needs
further investigation.
2:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said an item identified by the new scanner
could be a bomb; however, given the aging population it is more
likely to be a medical implant, a missing body part as a result
of war, cancer, or even something natural. She explained that
once the new scanner identifies a problem, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) agent will use a more invasive
procedure. She reported that beginning in February 2011 until
the end of the legislative session she received over 1,000 e-
mails and letters from people all over the country, of which
approximately 300 were from Alaskans. She said that people also
stop her on the street and come into her office to tell their
stories. She offered her belief that the type of reaction they
have exhibited is typical of someone who has been traumatized.
She related that children or elderly parents have been subjected
to the procedures. She acknowledged that the measures have been
put in place as a reaction to 9/11.
2:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that she has served for ten
years on the Special Committee of Military and Veterans Affairs
so she shares security concerns, but she also is concerned about
the loss of independence people feel when subjected to these
invasive devices.
2:53:57 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Pruitt.
2:54:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained that this bill would require the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to
post an informational sign in each Alaska airport where TSA
screening takes place. The sign's wording would warn passengers
of the potentially dangerous screening procedures before they
enter the TSA controlled screening area. She pointed out that
the notices would be at larger airports flying to Lower 48, not
at smaller airports since the type of screening required is
linked to size of airport. She started to explain a TSA opt-out
form, but realized the form did not apply. She explained that
each airport will be required to post a sign at least 11 inches
by 14 inches outside the security area to identify the screening
procedures so each passenger is forewarned about the body
scanning device.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained that some people have reported
they did not realize the manner in which the TSA people would
talk to them. This posting would help since it will give
consumers a warning to be aware that by walking into the TSA
area they are consenting to abide by the screening.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said the state has a huge number of
airports owned by the DOT&PF. She identified the Juneau and
Ketchikan airports as municipal airports. The bill would notify
the governmental agency that owns the airports and leases about
the requirement to post the small sign. She asked to have
additional time to check with the leased land proprietors to
ascertain whether the requirement for signage would mesh with
their procedures. She reiterated that this bill will help
prepare people and give them informed consent.
3:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ thanked her for her courage on this issue.
She asked for clarification on radiation issues. She related
her understanding that the devices have greater radiation and
asked how the new scanner compares to the more traditional
screening devices.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that she did not know. She
expressed concern over the absence of third-party oversight on
any of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
measures. The Congress gave TSA the right to write regulations.
She explained there is not any way to determine that the
equipment is safe. She recalled viewing forms and numerous
cautions from the manufacturers that if the scanner equipment is
not properly installed, calibrated, and regularly checked that
it will not be safe. She stressed that the state should be
extremely careful to ensure public health and safety.
3:03:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the devices emit radiation,
the quantity, or if it is electromagnetic.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she did not know. She related her
understanding that the scanners use a type of radiation that is
a slower traveling radiation, which is of concern.
[HB 270 was held over.]
3:04:19 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 271 draft.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Fed Standard CMV.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 SPONSOR.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Vehicle classes.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB0271A.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB271-DOA-DMV-2-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB0270A.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270- Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270- Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 270 Changes in Airport Passenger Screening.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 270 |
| HB 258 vB.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 258 INE study.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DEC-AQ-02-16-12 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Fiscal Notes.msg |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DHSS-EPI-02-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DOLWD-LSS-2-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| Hb 271 Ak Truck support.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 NFIB Support.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| Hb 271 Norcom Operations.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB271 AGC Letter.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 258 CS Sectional Ver E.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 258 CS Sectional Ver E.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |