Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/09/1999 03:24 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 158 - NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY
Number 0484
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 158, "An Act relating to the annual report of the director of
the division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal
insurance." Chairman Rokeberg explained the legislation as the
bill sponsor. He indicated the first portion of the bill would
amend AS 21.06.110 by adding a new subsection with the language,
"statistical information regarding health insurance, including the
number of individual and group policies sold in the state; and".
This information would be provided to the Division of Insurance,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, to assist the
division by mandating insurance companies doing business in the
state to determine the number of people covered under individual
group policies or non-ERISA policies [ERISA, Employee Retirement
and Security Act]. The chairman noted this has been after a
five-year quest for information from the department.
Number 0524
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained the second portion of the legislation
results from the experience of his neighbor. The neighbor is in
his 80s, with an invalid wife. The neighbor was involved in an
automobile accident and afterwards discovered his insurance had
expired about four months previously; he hadn't realized he had
failed to pay his bill. The chairman indicated his neighbor is
quite lucid but might be suffering from mild forms of dementia,
which is not unusual at that age. As a result, the gentleman was
able to make a settlement of some $25,000 against an actual $80,000
damage amount. [Chairman Rokeberg indicated this settlement
information is in a letter in the bill packet from Reverend Ronald
Martinson of the Central Lutheran Church in Anchorage. There is an
April 7, 1999, letter from Reverend Martinson on this issue in the
bill packet but it does not contain information regarding
settlement.]
Number 0577
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG emphasized the need to verify that senior and
elderly Alaskans receive proper notice their insurance is going to
be canceled. The legislation only covers personal insurance -
property and casualty - excluding life and health. Currently, the
insurance companies only have to register a notice of mailing
within their own records; they do not have to have a return
receipt. The legislation gives Alaskans over 67 years old a longer
period of notification and a letter mailed return receipt ten days
prior to cancellation. Commenting that this is like an unfunded
mandate to the insurance industry, the chairman noted the insurance
industry would incur some costs because the timing would begin at
60 days, rather than the current 30 days, and the return receipt
would be required. The chairman requested that Janet Seitz, aide
to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, explain the
current statutory requirements for notification and the changes the
legislation would make for older Alaskans.
Number 0665
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman, Alaska
State Legislature came forward. As aide to the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee (Labor and Commerce), she explained the
changes. Ms. Seitz indicated the current basic scheme for everyone
is shown on page 2, line 17 through 23, of the bill: written
notice of cancellation at least 30 days before the effective date,
a 20-day notice, and a 10-day notice. House Bill 158 would require
a different notice schedule if a person is 67 or older: first
notice at least 60 days before the effective date of cancellation,
second notice at least 30 days, and a third written notice at least
10 days before sent by certified mail.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if the committee understands what the
legislation does. He confirmed for Representative Harris that only
the last mailing is by certified mail.
Number 0720
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO confirmed from the chairman that the incident
mentioned in the sponsor statement and in the letter on the Central
Lutheran Church letterhead concern the same individual.
Representative Halcro commented the letter says the couple had a
caregiver who confessed to taking advantage of the couple's
finances for over $40,000.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is a different incident not spoken to
in the bill; he indicated it simply makes this couple's situation
that much worse.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned whether the caregiver could have
thrown away the notice of cancellation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed it was possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned how this legislation would prevent
this situation if someone keeps throwing the notice away or if
someone moves.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered he thinks it protects the insurance
company because it would have the return receipt, being able to
prove the notice was sent. He thinks it helps both the recipient
and the insurer.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if any other cases like this have
occurred, indicating he is trying to understand the reason for
changing the notice structure.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the witness testimony might be helpful.
Number 0804
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned why the legislation is
requesting statistical information on health insurance but no other
types of insurance.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that is the figure they have been seeking
for five years. The department does an excellent job obtaining all
kinds of other statistics but that one has been elusive. This
legislation is something of a statutory mandate to obtain that
statistical information. It gives the Division of Insurance
justification if there is a cost involved in obtaining the
information and provides justification to the insurance companies
for the division's request.
Number 0856
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Executive Director, Catholic Community Services,
came forward to testify in support of HB 158. Ms. Hagevig noted
Catholic Community Services is the parent organization to Southeast
Senior Services; they serve 2,200 seniors in 15 Southeast Alaska
communities. They support the legislation, particularly the
section dealing with insurance notification for Alaska's elderly
citizens. The efforts to provide an extra safety net for probably
some of the most vulnerable members of the state's population are
appreciated. Ms. Hagevig shared that she speaks from personal
experience as a distant caregiver for an aging parent. Her sibling
living close to the parent tries to intercept the mail every day to
make sure something important does not go astray. Ms. Hagevig
indicated this legislation would be of great assistance to those
seniors, many of whom might be afflicted with dementia or
Alzheimer's disease, who are trying very hard to maintain
independent living for as long as possible outside of institutional
situations. She understands there would be some complications with
the insurance industry but is confident they could be resolved.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted this applied to personal insurance
and questioned whether Ms. Hagevig thought it should be broadened.
MS. HAGEVIG thinks it is a step in the right direction, and she is
sure there was a good reason for beginning this process with
personal insurance. She related a recent situation she had heard
firsthand from a woman in Ketchikan. The woman's husband had died,
had apparently forgotten to pay his life insurance premiums, and
the wife was unable to collect anything. Ms. Hagevig noted these
are very serious situations in people's lives as they become older,
and she commented on the growth of this segment of the population.
Number 0993
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out to the committee there is a statutory
grace period for life insurance, mentioning 30 days, but no
mandated grace period for personal insurance. The chairman
indicated he has had some discussion with members of the industry
regarding notifications to relatives or other caregivers; he thinks
it is difficult to do that statutorily.
MS. HAGEVIG said in her personal situation her sibling has made
every effort to change the [mailing] address when these situations
come to light; this is another solution but it is not always
effective. Also, not all senior citizens have family members close
enough to be able to do that for them.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that having a change of address is
probably the best advice to anyone in the circumstance; hopefully
they will generate some publicity with this legislation and pass
that information on.
Number 1094
JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to answer the
committee's questions on HB 158 from a technical standpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to an April 7, 1999, letter in
the bill packet from the Alliance of American Insurers which states
that this is going to be very problematic because there is nothing
currently in place for them to monitor when someone turns 67.
Representative Murkowski commented regular notices would be sent
out to 70 percent of the public but it would then be necessary to
monitor everyone's birthday. She asked Mr. Ference how the
division would monitor the industry's compliance with this
legislation, if passed.
MR. FERENCE replied they monitor in two fashions: through consumer
complaints and a periodic random audit process addressed to both
insurance agents and companies. The division looks at producer
files to see if the notices are copied there and it examines
insurance companies to see if the companies have issued proper
notices. In addition, the division responds to individual consumer
complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether the division has
received complaints regarding the notification situations this
legislation would address.
Number 1198
MR. FERENCE replied the division receives consumer complaints on a
regular basis about inadequate or missing notices. Investigation
results show that more often than not the notices were sent and are
missing in transit or were received and ignored. Mr. Ference
indicated the complaints come from no particular concentration of
the population.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated an amendment to the effect that nothing
in this paragraph would authorize the director to require the
insurer to release proprietary information had been suggested
regarding the statistical information. The chairman questioned
whether Mr. Ference objected to an amendment of this type.
MR. FERENCE replied he is not really in a position to offer an
opinion because he does not know if the carrier they would request
this information from would view it as proprietary. However, if
the provision is not in the legislation, it is not a question.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if a distinction would be made between
covered lives and policies, questioning if the committee needed to
be specific in law or if the division could handle that.
Number 1297
MR. FERENCE confirmed the division could handle that itself.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG emphasized the objective is the amount of
non-ERISA-covered.
MR. FERENCE questioned that the information desired is the number
of people who are beneficiaries of health insurance.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted they wanted to make the distinction between
non-ERISA and ERISA-covered.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned whether there is similar
legislation in other states regarding the amount of notice as well
as the statistical mandate.
MR. FERENCE replied that, to the best of his knowledge, this would
be a longer notice period than is required in any other
jurisdiction. In response to chairman's question, Mr. Ference
confirmed this is a new idea, to the best of his knowledge, and has
not been directly looked at in other states.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed his approval.
Number 1367
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for the National Association of Independent
Insurers (NAII), came forward. Among the members of NAII are
Allstate [Allstate Insurance Company], GEICO [GEICO Corporation],
USAA, Progressive [The Progressive Corporation] - major writers of
automobile insurance in the state of Alaska. The notice required
by this legislation would be a real problem for insurers. Mr.
George said he had spoken this afternoon with an Allstate
representative who had been an underwriter in the pre-computer
days. This representative commented the company did not have age
information for some of its clients because the original
applications were taken manually. Unless the client applied for a
senior citizen discount, the company might not know who its
67-year-olds are. The NAII believes that there are thousands or
possibly even hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices issued
every year in the state of Alaska. Mr. George questioned how many
people even pay their insurance 60 days before it is due,
commenting it is due just prior to cancellation. He indicated
there would also be problems with people who pay their insurance on
a monthly basis. Mr. George further indicated they are working on
these logistical concerns with the chairman.
Number 1453
MR. GEORGE expressed that his foremost concern, however, is the
approaching year 2000 (Y2K). The NAII and other trade associations
have lobbied the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(NAIC), the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL),
and the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) who have
all passed resolutions urging state legislators not to pass
legislation which could require insurance company programmers to
concentrate on issues other than meeting Y2K compliance. Even if
this legislation were to progress, NAII would urge the legislature
for an effective date after Y2K so the insurance company
programmers can continue their compliance efforts to ensure that
the entire system doesn't crash. Mr. George indicated his clients
have some serious problems with the legislation but the intent is
appreciated. He thinks there are some solutions and these are
being discussed with the companies. He noted it has occurred to
him that the more a person suffers from dementia, the less likely
the person is to need an automobile. Mr. George added there is an
additional fail-safe with automobiles or homes that are financed:
there is a lender ensuring that that insurance stays in force as
well. He admitted, however, the older a person is, the less likely
there is to be a lender involved.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS questioned if the insurance companies would
be a lot happier if the notification series remained as it is
currently - 30, 20, 10 - and the last letter had to been sent by
certified mail no matter the person's age. It seems to him the
certified part is the point here, that someone signed for the
letter verifying that it was actually picked up.
MR. GEORGE replied that would make it more palatable. He thinks
anytime something has to be done differently, such as the certified
mail, it is less than optimal, but that is certainly one of the
alternatives being examined. He referred to a previous comment of
the chairman's regarding this being an unfunded mandate; Mr. George
noted that is actually not true. Insurance premiums are largely
based on age categories. It might be discovered that this could
result in a premium increase for whatever age group it applies to
because insurers can add the extra notice requirement into their
rate structure. Mr. George noted this aspect is being worked on as
well. He reminded the committee that insurers don't like canceling
insurance and would much rather keep it on the books if it is good,
solid business.
Number 1681
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented it seems from Mr. George's
testimony that if the certified cost is spread out over all the age
categories for health insurance, the 67-plus Alaskans would not be
hit any more than the lower age brackets.
MR. GEORGE clarified that this would apply to automobile and
homeowners' insurance, not health insurance. Mr. George said he
did not know why it would be spread out over everyone if they were
speaking of a specific notice for a specific group, indicating he
had misunderstood Representative Harris's comment about a certified
final mailing for all policy cancellations, no matter the person's
age. Mr. George made a few additional statements under this
misunderstanding.
Number 1797
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned which would be more expensive
for the insurance companies: determining and monitoring the age of
all of a company's insureds to identify incoming 67-year-olds or
Representative Harris's idea that all final 10-day cancellation
notices would be automatically sent via certified mail.
MR. GEORGE replied that uniformity would be nice. He reminded the
committee that Alaska is a very small market and these are national
companies. Almost anything the legislature does would probably be
a minor exception to these companies. Mr. George commented that
sending out a certified notice to every Alaskan would still be
somewhat of a thorn in the companies' side. Even in Alaska they
are speaking of thousands and thousands of these notices. A lot of
people pay their insurance within 10 days of the expiration date.
He indicated sending 20,000 certified letters out per month could
be a significant expense and even the physical process of
certifying the letters would be inconvenient. Mr. George also
noted from his previous experience as director of the Division of
Insurance, when the division was "served" for an insurance company,
the division, in turn, had to send that summons/complaint to the
insurance company certified return request, and about a third of
the cards never came back. Mr. George related he became so
frustrated he called the office of Senator Ted Stevens. He
received a call back from the Postmaster General informing him the
postal service did not know what was happening but could not fix
it. Mr. George said the situation was never resolved and he
indicated certified return receipt was not a fail-safe.
Number 2000
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how much certified mail costs.
KEVIN HAND, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative
Andrew Halcro, Alaska State Legislature, answered $2.90.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a business could also apply and fill
out their own certified mail if the mail is picked up at the place
of business.
MR. GEORGE noted that is a manual step and indicated the companies'
current mailing processes are completely automated. Mr. George
reiterated the companies do think there are some solutions here and
they are continuing to work on them. He mentioned Florida and
Arizona both have aged populations; he commented someone has
probably thought of this there as well.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Mr. George's indicated testimony
regarding concern for the upcoming year 2000 date change and the
programmers' ability to program. The chairman noted Mr. George had
also testified that the underwriters are looking at age groups when
doing actuarial calculations to assess rates. The chairman
commented he was not sure if he could buy into the Y2K problem Mr.
George had mentioned; it seems to the chairman that if actuarial
calculations are going to be done for a policy rate quote to an
individual, that person's age already has to be in the calculation.
Number 2170
MR. GEORGE responded that the major changes are for young drivers
versus anyone over 25 or so. They are speaking about a fair number
of people who have been insured for the last 30 or 40 years who did
not get into the computer system. Mr. George emphasized his
concern about Y2K is that any changes which require a programmer to
change the program to give a different notice to a certain group of
people, or other action, takes a programmer's time. Currently,
that programmer is concentrating on generically beating the Y2K
problem. The companies would like to let the programmers continue
to concentrate on that. Mr. George noted it would be a significant
problem for some companies, and would not be as big a deal for
others.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he looked forward to Mr. George's letter
endorsing HB 82 [HB 82 - IMMUNITY: CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K
PROBLEMS].
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented regarding health insurance and
expressed that she could see a significant advantage in having an
extended time to make sure people received something. She
questioned if older policy holders didn't usually pay more because
of their age.
MR. GEORGE answered there is actually a senior citizen discount on
automobile policies.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if this discount was often given
because the senior citizens had been policy holders for many years,
had helped support the company, and helped support other policy
holders.
MR. GEORGE replied he doesn't know that they are required to have
been longtime policy holders. He believes the theory is that
people probably drive less as they reach a more mature age and
probably are statistically involved in fewer accidents because of
fewer miles. He noted, though, the rate of accident per mile might
actually be higher. Mr. George qualified that he was speaking off
the top of his head and really does not know how that comes out
statistically.
Number 2435
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted her father had had an insurance
company; the thought had been to always try and provide service.
She commented she was sure all of the companies Mr. George
represents do that.
MR. GEORGE reminded the committee that insurance companies make
money by writing insurance, not by canceling it. It is expensive
to cancel a policy then reinstate it or lose it altogether. The
companies pay commissions to agents to make sure those things don't
happen.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he had a couple of questions. He
stated, "The way the bill is written, you have to give 60 days
first notice, then 30 and then..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE
CHANGE]
[From tape log notes: 'If my policy']
TAPE 99-36, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued, "...and send out three notices
before you can cancel me, is that the way you're reading ... the
legislation?"
MR. GEORGE replied, "I'm not sure that carrying someone would be
the (indisc.) - you would - if the policy expired August 1, 60 days
prior to that you would send out the notice, so that on the day the
policy expired it could be canceled. You wouldn't wait until close
to the end and then cancel it and have to extend it beyond."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO agreed, noting Mr. George had said some
people do pay their insurance on a monthly basis. Therefore, there
is no way this time period would fit within that 60-day window.
MR. GEORGE replied it would be "putting a round peg in a square
hole," indicating it created some logistical problems.
Number 0089
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned if the company would have to
continue to carry the person if the certified mail was returned,
asking what the intent was.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the company could cancel the policy.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said that is where his problem lies. In the
case the chairman had cited, if the caregiver had thrown away the
certified letter it would not have made any difference.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that is true.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated, "With all due respect, I think this
is a solution looking for a problem."
MR. GEORGE pointed out Ms. Hagevig had described that her sibling
tries to intercept the parent's mail: a notice to another person
might be a simple solution. A person could designate themselves or
someone else to receive notices of cancellation. Mr. George
indicated that perhaps information to this effect could be included
with the person's premium billing when he/she hits the specific
age. Mr. George further indicated the industry is examining all of
these things to find workable solution.
Number 0218
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reminded Representative Halcro the present
statutory policy is that the insurance company makes and files a
note to itself that the cancellation notice has been sent. The
company does not have to account to anyone regarding this. To the
chairman, requiring the return receipt ensures there was an intent
to make notice by mail to the insured. The return receipt also
gives the insurance company proof it did make the notice.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted the current statutes state that they
shall obtain a certificate of mailing from the United States Postal
Service, so that is already required under AS 21.36.260.
MR. GEORGE explained, as he understands it, an insurance company
will have a computer printout with the list of names and the stack
of envelopes. This list is signed by a postal employee. Mr.
George indicated there is also is a certification by the insurance
company employee that he/she actually mailed those notices. He
expressed doubt about certified mailing.
Number 0337
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the company would receive the return
receipt verifying the letter had been delivered.
MR. GEORGE answered, "Or not."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that perhaps the committee should
mandate that if the return receipt was not received, the company
should give the individual a grace period.
MR. GEORGE referred to the return receipt, indicating that piece of
paper would have to be dealt with manually, rather than by
computer, and there would be some matching problems because it is
a fixed post office form.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he appreciates Mr. George's comments and
has indicated to the industry that he is happy to work with them on
solutions. Chairman Rokeberg commented some of the possible
solutions might be increasing the age and examining other forms.
He explained the intent of the 60-day period was to allow
sufficient time if a caregiver or someone else was paying the bills
for the individual. However, the chairman does understand that
probably would be a programming change and probably a larger cost
than the certified return receipt.
Number 0501
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why statutory grace periods are
allowed with a cancellation or termination of a life insurance
policy, but not with any other form of insurance.
MR. GEORGE answered that life and health have very different types
of products and grace periods do exist. He noted he had been
surprised on examining the statute that a person has two or three
years after a life insurance policy lapses to be able to pay the
premium and have the policy reinstated. Mr. George indicated this
might affect the Ketchikan woman whose situation Ms. Hagevig
described.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said it makes one wonder if a grace period
couldn't just be allowed for certain individuals above a certain
age.
MR. GEORGE noted that was one of the possibilities being
considered, even if there were a fee for that. For example, the
person receives the notice on the day the policy actually cancels
but if he/she sends payment in within 15 days for an extra $25
dollars, the person could possibly be reinstated.
Number 0599
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "Option to extend prepayment," noting
it could be inserted in the initial billing. He indicated possibly
the person could be sold 30 or 60 days worth of grace for a prepaid
premium. He confirmed no one else wished to testify on the
legislation and expressed his desire to see HB 158 move out of
committee to the next committee of referral, the House Judiciary
Standing Committee (Judiciary). The chairman noted he has agreed
to work with industry and make some adjustments to the legislation
as it moves through the process. He commented the chairman of
Judiciary formerly chaired Labor and Commerce and has been an
active legislative participant with NAIC and NCOIL. Chairman
Rokeberg thinks the required age needs to be raised somewhat and
the time frames need to be examined, along with any suggestions the
industry can make that might reduce the cost and serve these people
better. Confirming no one else wished to testify, the chairman
closed the public testimony on HB 158. He pointed to the D.1
amendment before the committee, explaining it was requested by some
members of the insurance industry and he thinks it is valid. The
chairman designated this proposed amendment as Amendment 1.
Amendment 1, labeled 1-LS0128\D.1, Ford, 4/7/99, read:
Page 2, line 11
Following "sold":
Insert "or terminated"
Following "state;":
Insert "this paragraph does not authorize the
director to require an insurer to release proprietary
information;"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG moved Amendment 1, questioning if everyone had an
understanding of it. He asked if there were any objections to the
amendment. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. With that,
the chairman requested the committee's indulgence to move the
legislation to Judiciary for further activity.
Number 0786
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected to moving the legislation out of
committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Halcro to speak to his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he thinks the bill has a lot of
logistical problems; since he does not sit on Judiciary, he does
not feel comfortable moving the legislation until these problems
are addressed in the current committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she sits on Judiciary and she would
prefer that the work on this legislation be done in this committee,
rather than Judiciary. She thinks Labor and Commerce will produce
a good product and then Judiciary can do the final review.
Number 0881
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented on the references to the committee
members as freshmen legislators, noting many of the new members are
younger members. She indicated the issue the bill addresses is
something that becomes a more significant problem as one approaches
her own age and she expressed the hope that if the legislation is
heard again in Labor and Commerce, the committee would hear from
other witnesses.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he is concerned about the lateness of
the session and the "bottleneck" in Judiciary.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS suggested the committee take an at-ease.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, "And Mr. Chairman, if I may speak
to that bottleneck I think that we could address..."
Number 0945
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 5:19 p.m. The
committee came back to order at approximately 5:21 p.m.
Number 0947
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that HB 158 would be held over until
Monday [April 12, 1999].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|