SB 163-DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES  4:52:41 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 163(STA), "An Act relating to commercial motor vehicles." 4:52:51 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:53:02 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if Mr. Byrd could present the bill. 4:53:45 PM DANIEL BYRD, Chief, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Anchorage Office, Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) introduced himself and stated he would try to do so. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed concern about the audio quality for the testifier. 4:54:04 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:54:59 PM JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) introduced himself. He stated that SB 163 would bring Alaska's definition of commercial motor vehicles into the 21st century and in alignment with the Federal Highways Reauthorization Act of 2012, "Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century Act," commonly referred to as MAP-21. 4:55:26 PM MR. BINDER stated that the proposed changes in SB 163 would benefit farmers who transport agricultural commodities or supplies in Alaska because existing restrictions on farm vehicles limit their movement to within 150 miles of their farm. This bill would allow farmers to operate anywhere in Alaska. He stated that MAP-21 made the federal regulations less restrictive than current Alaska statutes. This bill, SB 163, would also propose that transportation of hazardous materials be amended to only apply to (indis.) regardless of the size of the vehicle. Finally, the definition of school bus would be updated to provide clarity for when school buses are exempt from commercial motor vehicle regulation requirements. 4:56:18 PM MR. BINDER offered to provide additional information on the specific sections. Section 1 primarily would relate to the 150- mile rule. This would allow farmers operating their vehicles in support of their farm operations to transport materials anywhere in the state without being limited to the 150-mile radius of their farm. MR. BINDER stated that Section 2 would primarily relate to the HAZMAT [hazardous materials] portion. Current statute required that certain placards be posted regardless of the amount; however, federal regulation relieved that up to certain quantities, so this would align with federal regulations, he said. For example, an aircraft operator might wish to deliver a drum to a village or a remote residence. Under current law, the operator would need to placard that even though reporting this amount of substance would not normally be required. 4:57:25 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux. 4:57:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether 110 gallons of aviation gas would exceed the federal placard amount. MR. BINDER said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether commercial fishermen who use their pickup to carry three drums of fuel, which would equate to 150 gallons, would be affected by the bill given the definition of commercial vehicle in SB 163, would need to comply with weights and measures. MR. BINDER responded that this bill would relieve the burden because federal regulations are less than state statute and it would allow drivers to transport those quantities without being stopped for commercial purposes. 5:00:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to [page 2, line 24] in Section 2, "for vehicles used in interstate commerce," and whether that would affect fishing guides hauling their boats containing drums, such that the guides would be subject to commercial vehicle inspections. He asked whether this bill would have any unintended consequences for these fishing guides. MR. BYRD answered that this bill does not affect compliance requirements for intrastate versus interstate commerce. He explained that currently the federal government has jurisdiction over HAZMAT [hazardous materials] shipments and if the regulations require placards then the regulations would apply. This bill would not change commercial vehicle enforcement or HAZMAT enforcement. 5:01:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the definition of school bus under [proposed AS 19.10.399 (15)]. He asked whether that fell under the exemption and further how this provision would affect school buses that have been converted to recreational vehicles and whether these vehicles would be considered commercial vehicles. MR. BYRD answered that school buses or any commercial vehicle must fit the definition of a commercial vehicle, including gross vehicle weight, the number of passengers, and whether the vehicle would be transporting hazardous materials. The underlying requirement would be that the vehicle must be used in commerce, so school buses used as recreational vehicles would not fall under the definition of commercial vehicle. 5:02:53 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned the gavel to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins. 5:03:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Section 1, on page 2, lines 4- which removed a description of the vehicle but added "covered" farm vehicles. He asked for further clarification on the meaning of covered farm vehicles and if it meant covered by a tarp or covered by law. MR. BYRD answered that it meant vehicles covered by the regulation. 5:03:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the statutory cite for farm vehicles that were covered by this provision. He read, that are controlled and operated by a farmer; used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to or from that farmer's farm... He wondered if a flat-bed truck would fall under proposed Section 2 since these vehicles can travel anywhere in the state. He asked for further clarification on how to identify the vehicle as "farm vehicles" from those that are not. MR. BYRD answered that if the vehicle does not have an interstate commerce [ICC] number registration on the vehicle, which typically indicates commerce. He acknowledged that sometimes the same vehicles are used for farm operations and at times for commercial operations. The intent by removing the specificity was to allow farmers to use a variety of vehicles or implements to conduct their farm business without being overly restrictive with the type of vehicle. 5:05:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed concern about vehicles being operated by "other than the farmer." He offered to review what would be included for "covered farm vehicles." 5:05:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the rationale used for distinguishing between commercial vehicles and other vehicles. She was unsure of the reason to exempt farm vehicles from the definition of commercial vehicles. MR. BINDER deferred to Mr. Byrd. MR. BYRD offered that the rationale used to exempt "covered farm vehicles" would be to provide relief from regulations through MAP-21. [The exemption] currently applies to all interstate vehicles and this bill would add the exemption for intrastate vehicle traffic. He was unsure of the reason for the exemption for farmers and farm vehicles, noting he could only speculate, so he deferred to the Department of Law or someone else to respond. 5:07:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Binder for the rationale for distinguishing between a commercial vehicle and a non-commercial vehicle and whether it referred to a vehicle size, danger, or other criteria. She asked for further clarification on why farm vehicles would be exempt, which could be used to transport bomb materials. 5:08:37 PM MR. BINDER answered that commercial vehicles were larger and carried cargo, so it would require that drivers have extra training. In addition, commercial vehicle regulations also cover vehicle safety, to ensure vehicles are safe, especially if the drivers are transporting passengers or HAZMAT [hazardous materials]. He was unsure of the reason to exempt farm vehicles. 5:09:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she would like to hear the rationale for exempting farm vehicles. MR. BINDER responded that farm vehicles currently are exempted and have been for years. This bill would remove the 150-mile radius restriction, which was especially important in Alaska since farmers often need to transport their products for distances that exceed 150 miles. 5:09:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered her anecdotal response would be that farm vehicles are used on farms and their primary use is for off-highway purposes. Farmers may deliver goods or travel short distances on a highway; however, these vehicles are often slow-moving and are not equipped with signals. 5:10:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that Representative Johnson's description would contain farm vehicles within 150 miles of their farms, which seemed appropriate. She expressed concern that farm vehicles would be able to drive anywhere on the road system without being designated as commercial vehicles. 5:11:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed, noting that was his point with respect to removing language on page 2, lines 5-10. He wondered if it would be better to keep the language except for the 150- mile limit. He expressed concern about removing the conditions that limit it to a farmer transporting goods from one place to another and opening it up to anyone. He related a scenario in which a person could operate a produce and dairy business and truck produce without having to obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL). He referred to page 3, lines 6-11, which would remove that language again. He was unsure if coverage was somewhere in statute. 5:12:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his belief, since he has commercial trucks and while he does not like the regulations, some of the trucks haul 100,000 pounds and should be held to stricter standards. Thus, he understood the reason for commercial vehicle regulations. He offered the rationale for commercial vehicles was these vehicles are being used for commerce every day whereas farm vehicles and transport was seasonal and occasional. In response to Representative Tuck's concern, he mentioned that Section 3 does start to define farm equipment, reading [AS 19.10.399 (14) "covered farm vehicle" means] straight or articulated vehicle..." He continued and paraphrased subparagraph (B), which indicated that it must be operated by the owner or operator of a farm or ranch or employee of a farm or ranch. He argued that this language did not include commerce and characterized it as personal use. He recalled that a few years ago commercial vehicle enforcement started having commercial fishing guides pulling their boats with regular pickups subject to enforcement and requiring them to hold a commercial driver's license (CDL) until the legislature passed an exemption. 5:14:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered feedback from farmers, including that commercial vehicles cannot obtain "farmer's license plates" since these plates are limited to farmers. She indicated that farm vehicles were already defined. MR. BINDER acknowledged that he could have directed members to Section 3. He directed attention to school buses, since some buses have been used for commercial operation during the summer months when school is not in session and the buses were not being used for school operations. 5:16:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that school bus drivers must have a CDL requirement if they were transporting students. He asked whether bus drivers who were using school buses for other types of commerce would be exempt under SB 163. MR. BYRD answered that the commercial driver's license (CDL) program was a federal program. He stated that if bus drivers were hauling 16 or more passengers, they would need CDLs. 5:17:20 PM MR. BINDER added that would be for commercial purposes. He asked for further clarification. MR. BYRD answered that school bus drivers were required to hold CDLs with a passenger endorsement. 5:17:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 3, lines 1-2, and read, "the following vehicles meeting the criteria in (A) and (B) and either 2 (C)(i) or (ii) [(A) - (C)] of this paragraph are not commercial motor vehicles:" He said the way he read this language, school buses were commercial vehicles so it would require school bus drivers to hold CDLs. He asked for further clarification on what was being exempted. MR. BINDER directed attention to page 2, line 25 to current AS 19:10.399(1)(C)(ii), which read, "is designed to transport more than 15 passengers," noting that even though a school bus was designed to carry more than 15 passengers it was not being considered a commercial vehicle while it is being used to transport students for school purposes. 5:18:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for further clarification if school buses were not commercial vehicles the reason for the designation and if federal law requires drivers to hold CDLs to drive school buses. MR. BINDER responded that additional commercial requirements pertain to vehicles being used in commerce would start to apply, including vehicle maintenance, lighting and marking, depending on the purpose being used in commerce that do not apply while hauling students. 5:19:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed concern since drivers hauling students to and from school do not need to keep tail lights and markings operational and up to code. It seemed to him school bus drivers should have to meet higher standards not a lesser standard. 5:20:00 PM MR. BYRD answered that the commercial vehicle requirements would be the markings, medical certificate, and the name of the company on the side of the bus. He said that the exemptions in the bill would exempt the drivers from safety regulations under federal requirements. He did not believe that drivers were exempt from CDL requirements, but they would be exempt from additional requirements that would apply to commercial vehicles; however, he noted that there was also a school bus inspection program, which was more stringent, more so than commercial vehicle inspections. Those inspections were conducted through the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). He related his understanding that DEED requires school buses must be inspected twice a year to check vehicle safety, such as brake linings and wiring. He commented that bus drivers were still required to do a walk around inspection to ensure that the bus is in safe operating condition each time they leave to conduct a route. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged that was a policy call. 5:21:46 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SB 163 would be held over.