Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
04/25/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR12 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB143 | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Alaska Judicial Council | |
| HB266 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 266 - VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND INSURANCE 2:22:28 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to offenses and penalties for violation of vehicle weight limitations; prohibiting the use of a violation of a vehicle weight limitation for certain personal automobile insurance actions; amending Rule 43.6, Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 266(TRA).] JOS GOVAARS, Staff to Representative Jim Elkins, House Transportation Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said, on behalf of the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 266, that the bill modifies existing law relating to the penalty structure for overweight vehicle violations, as well as prohibits the use of overweight vehicle violations by insurers [to raise a driver's personal insurance rates]. The bill proposes the first increase in penalties since the existing provisions were established in the 1970s. Those provisions do not adequately inhibit commercial shipping companies and others from violating overweight vehicle limitations, he opined, adding that the proposed modifications establish a graduated penalty for the amount of weight in excess of the limitations set by statute, regulation, and permit. MR. GOVAARS said there are also new offenses established to sanction [certain] shippers or carriers who, for example, commit a combined total of [15] or more violations during any 12-month period. The maximum fine for this violation is $10,000. This modification is expected to result in commercial shippers and carriers being more rigorous towards compliance with overweight vehicle limitations. Another provision of the bill prohibits the use of overweight vehicle violations by insurers to adversely impact decisions related to providing private automobile insurance coverage for drivers. In the majority of cases, the driver has little or no knowledge or ability to limit the weight of the load placed on the vehicle they are assigned to drive and, as a result, the company causes the violation and, if cited, pays the fine imposed. MR. GOVAARS relayed that currently, overweight vehicle violations are used by insurers as justification to take adverse action in relation to the personal automobile insurance coverage of truck drivers. Section 1 of the bill would prohibit this action. This legislation will protect drivers who do not know they are in violation, as well as Alaska's roads from overweight vehicles. In conclusion, he said that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the "Teamsters," and [Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC,] all support HB 266, and that the sponsor would like to thank the committee for its support [of HB 266]. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that he's heard a concern regarding weight standards. MR. GOVAARS relayed that there have been concerns expressed that the increase in penalties is too significant, particularly for the smaller amounts of weight over the limit, and that members' packets include a list of Overweight Uniform Traffic Citations for 2004, some of which were for relatively small amounts of weight over the limit, but one of which - listed at the top of page 3 of the handout - was for 36,400 pounds over the limit. In response to another question, he relayed that the sponsor thinks that the bill should not be amended. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the bill contains a provision regarding repeat violations, and asked how that provision relates to current law and whether repeat violations are a common occurrence. MR. GOVAARS said that there are a number of carriers that have traveled over weight a number of times. He suggested, however, that a representative from the DOT&PF would be better able to address this issue. 2:27:45 PM AVES D. THOMPSON, Director, Anchorage Office, Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), first relayed that current statute does not contain a "repeat violation" provision, and then that in calculating repeat violations, consideration would be given to the number of violations that all the drivers working for a particular carrier had, because numerous violations - even if each driver had only one violation - could demonstrate a pattern of violation for the carrier. He offered his understanding that under the bill, if a carrier reaches the repeat violation threshold listed in the bill, it could trigger an investigation by the DOT&PF to determine whether a pattern of violation exists which warrants prosecution by the Department of Law (DOL). REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Thompson and the sponsor to consider imposing a higher fine for a driver with repeat violations. MR. THOMPSON said he would be willing to think about that concept. REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he views repeat violations from companies with just a few drivers as worse than repeat violations from companies with a lot of drivers. 2:30:15 PM MR. GOVAARS offered his understanding that the goal of HB 266 is to get overweight trucks off the road because, in addition to causing wear and tear on the road, they create a hazard. And although HB 266 proposes to replace the current [fine] structure, if the committee can come up with what it considers to be a more equitable way of ensuring that overweight vehicles are no longer on Alaska's roads, the sponsor would be open to an amendment, he relayed. 2:31:22 PM MR. THOMPSON explained that it is the DOT&PF's intention to try to reduce the number of overweight vehicles and is not looking to generate revenue, adding that it is important to remember that there is a fine associated with each individual violation and that the "pattern of violation" provision is aimed at the most egregious of violators - those carriers that take advantage of every situation and push their drivers to do things they shouldn't be doing. He also explained that Section 1 prohibits insurers from using overweight violations to adversely impact decisions related to personal automobile insurance; that Section 2 modifies the existing penalty structure, which, he opined, do not adequately deter overweight violations; and that Section 3 addresses patterns of repeat violations, which could result in a fine of up to $10,000 for the most egregious offenders. In conclusion, he asked that the committee give favorable consideration to HB 266 and move it forward. 2:33:19 PM MICHAEL BELL, Director, Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA), relayed that although the ATA supports Section 1 of HB 266 - since there are times when drivers unintentionally violate the overweight regulations and are then penalized with a rise in insurance premiums on vehicles unrelated to the violation - the ATA does have some concern with Section 2, which increases the fines for overweight violations. He noted, however, that the proposed legislation would be less objectionable if the highest proposed fine increases were confined to the more significant weight violations - for example, those vehicles that are overweight by 8,000 pounds or more. The ATA does not believe that the large increases in fines for violations involving those vehicles that are less than 8,000 pounds overweight are justified, since the impact of those vehicles on the state's highways is not as significant, and the overweighting might just be the result of unintentional errors by shippers or the lack of scales being readily available. MR. BELL went on to say that those increases penalize small trucking companies and owner/operators to a much larger degree than they do larger companies. He then referred to what he termed the shift in responsibility, from carriers to shippers, for violations caused by bill-of-lading errors, adding that the ATA does not support this proposed change. Carriers have the right to seek restitution from a customer if they choose, but it is their choice, and if carriers have the right equipment available to haul their loads, can provide some margin of error, and, where possible, check the weights of the loads, then [bill- of-lading] errors can be caught. MR. BELL said that the ATA does not support placing the burden of these errors directly on to its customers, since it does not believe that customers intentionally misstate the weights on bills of lading. With regard to Section 3, he said that while the ATA does not support "the additional scrutiny," it does believe that the "tier structure" should be directly proportional to the number of drivers a given company has. In conclusion, he mentioned that the ATA is in the process of having proposed amendments drafted. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether an amendment deleting the language on page 2, lines 6-12 - which currently proposes [fine increases] for vehicles that are overweight by amounts up to and including 8,000 pounds - would alleviate the ATA's concerns. MR. BELL said yes. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he would be willing to make such an amendment. MR. BELL, in response to a question, relayed that the ATA represents about 350 companies and that that equates to approximately 65 percent of the trucks currently driving Alaska's roads. 2:36:53 PM BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, relayed that members' packets should include a copy of a letter offered by her supervisor in support of the bill, adding that her organization would like to encourage the committee to move the bill onto the next committee of referral. She elaborated: From our perspective, this is first, foremost, and ultimately about safety - we do represent truck drivers in the industry, many of which work for companies that are members of ATA [and] some that are not. ... I would also like to comment regarding the earlier [proposed] amendment if I'm not totally out of line. When we looked at this bill from a safety perspective -- and I guess for the record, whether you're running 2,000 pounds overweight or 30,000, an overweight vehicle is in violation of the law - first and foremost. Secondly, it creates a safety hazard. ... In fact ... there has been a legislative representative in this building who lost her son and her husband to a truck [that] ... was running ... overweight. It would fall into the category that they're looking at reducing the fines on, and, ... for the record, we would not support [such an amendment]. ... You're looking at increasing fines that have not been increased for ... 30-some years. If you sit down and you actually calculate that percentage based on just the cost of living [increase] alone, it doesn't come anywhere near what's being proposed here. We believe that the increases in rates are very fair. First and foremost we would like to see all drivers, all companies, follow the law. And if they're following the law, they're not going to be paying these fines, ultimately, anyway. So for that reason we would have great concern with proposing to adjust any of those fines, and we would ask the committee's support to move the bill on. Thank you. 2:40:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the teamsters concern is that truckers are currently being endangered by those that are loading the trucks. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS said one could ultimately make that analogy, but offered that in the big picture, whether one is the owner of the trucking company or the driver of the truck, the onus of complying with the law is on both of them. The controversy boils down to who, ultimately, is responsible for paying the fine, and by reducing that fine, then, the company that is in violation would not be paying as much. So although her organization represents the truckers, the incentive provided by the increased rates should ensure that everyone abides by the law. To address a concern she'd heard in a previous committee that an individual trucker wouldn't know how much weight was being loaded onto his/her truck, she opined that a responsible, experienced truck driver knows how much weight his/her truck is built to carry and knows how to determine, within a reasonable margin of error, whether he/she is overloaded. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether drivers are pressured to carry overweight loads or whether a driver always has the freedom to refuse to drive an overweight vehicle. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS relayed that that concern could apply in certain areas, such as the Anchorage area or the Eagle River area, that in certain areas perhaps there is the potential for drivers to be encouraged to run overweight. 2:43:15 PM PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist for Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC ("Horizon"), after noting that Horizon is responsible for transporting about 40 percent of the goods that come into the state, said that he was glad to see that HB 266 received a House Judiciary Standing Committee referral, since this committee's focus is on the enforcement aspects of laws and the fairness with which they are applied. He went on to say: The overweight laws for Alaska were passed for a reason. The first was to protect our roads. ... When a truck is overweight, it pushes up a big wave in front of those tires, and that's what actually cracks the road - the groves you see in the road are caused by studs, that's not by overweight trucks; ... when that wave pushes the pavement up enough that it has a crack in it and water gets underneath and then freezes, that's what breaks up our roads. You can run with an overweight truck, but you have to [get] a permit, and a number one condition of an overweight permit is that you drive slower to reduce the amount of damage to the road. So it's costing the state ..., having to replace the roads sooner than they normally would, and it's also [a] public safety issue for us in the container industry. Our containers are rated - the bottom of them ... - to carry a certain capacity. If they're overloaded, the bottom of the container can break out and spill the cargo onto the longshoreman working underneath, and we actually had this happen out in Dutch Harbor. As a matter of fairness, and I think some of the issues were raised as far as the drivers ... picking up a load that's overweight, we feel as a business-fairness issue there [that] our company is dedicated to running legal operations within the laws of the State of Alaska, and we believe that other carriers should be required to do the same. And unfortunately we have a situation now where the fine structure for overweight [vehicles] is less than what you would make if [you] got paid to carry the ... extra weight. So ... it's a fine to you, but it's not as much as you're getting paid, so it's not really an efficient deterrent to running overweight, as it is right now. And we have actually lost business by refusing to carry overweight cargo and telling people we wouldn't do it, and they actually found another carrier to carry their cargo. On the issue of the "lower end," ... I wouldn't say do away with the increase on the bottom end, but maybe make it graduated ..., because in those areas you could make an honest mistake of being just a little bit over. You get over 8,000 pounds, [then] that has to be willful and intentional. The other thing is that the penalty did remain on the driver, and the reason for that is that it's a criminal penalty and it's very easy for the department to give a criminal ticket. ... The driver, most times, has no control over the load. They say, "Here's your load," it's got a seal on the container ..., and you just pick it up and you go with it. Well, to try to do a civil fine to the person that overloaded the container would take too much time in the courts and the fiscal note would have been large. So that was a compromise: leave it a criminal penalty to the driver. The law does address, however, the issue, then, [that] if the driver is not at fault it shouldn't affect his insurance rates. And in terms of the pattern, [Mr. Thompson] is correct about that, that's to try to get at the habitual person who just kind of accepts it as a cost of doing business and [says], "I'm going to run overweight anyway." MR. FUHS then drew attention to the language on page 3, line 1, language that Horizon specifically asked for and which makes reference to a federal law - the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992 - that addresses situations in which somebody certifies on the bill of lading that cargo weighs 20,000 pounds, for example, when in fact it weighs 30,000 and so the documentation has been intentionally falsified. Such instances are a violation of federal law, and under HB 266, if a carrier or driver has violated that federal law three or more times, the department can also go after the shipper - the entity who actually loaded the container - because a pattern of violation has been demonstrated. In conclusion, he said that Horizon urges the committee to move the bill on to the next committee. 2:47:53 PM NONA WILSON, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), noted that with some companies, the fines as they exist today have simply been absorbed as part of the cost of doing business, particularly given what a company can get paid for overloading a vehicle. She pointed out that some would say it is a questionable practice to compromise safety as a cost of doing business, and offered a personal example wherein her mother was hit by an overweight vehicle - her mother's car never came home. And while some companies can afford to pay the fines, she remarked, the state cannot afford to pay the expense of continually replacing roads. MS. WILSON said that although permits for overweight vehicles are available, the drivers are asked to drive slower, which won't get them to their destinations on time. She relayed that the DOT&PF is asking for the bill to be left as is, and pointed out that the average violations occurring in 2004 were for being overweight between 1,000 and 8,000 pounds. This is something that neither citizens nor the state can afford; the department will have to keep coming back to the legislature for more funds, and meanwhile everyone will still be driving on damaged roads. The issue is one of safety, both in terms of overweight vehicles sharing the road with other drivers and in terms of the quality of Alaska's roads. 2:50:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how difficult it is to get an overweight permit. MS. WILSON offered her understanding that such permits, particularly those pertaining to short distances, can be gotten a day after applying for one. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he's heard criticism that getting such permits takes too long and that it takes longer than it used to. He said he's also heard that the weight distribution for motor homes is far worse than it is for trucks and yet a fine structure for motor homes is nonexistent. MS. WILSON suggested that Mr. Thompson could better address that issue. MR. THOMPSON, on the issue of overweight permits, relayed that typically a permit can be issued the same day it is applied for, and that although the department did have a permit office in Fairbanks for a number of years, technology has allowed the department to provide better service by consolidating its offices. With regard to the issue of motor homes, he acknowledged that they are not something that the department has been focusing on; the department's focus has instead been on commercial vehicles. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that commercial trucking is one of the reasons for having roads as well as one of the reasons for the costs associated with having roads. He remarked that the bill proposes some pretty narrow margins, and asked whether snow accumulation during a run could result in an overweight problem for the driver. MR. THOMPSON explained that although drivers can accumulate a lot of weight due to weather conditions, departmental regulations have provisions regarding snow and ice and so accommodations are made for such situations. There are also accommodations made in recognition of the fact that different scales may be set differently. He mentioned that federal oversight must also be kept in mind. 2:55:05 PM MR. GOVAARS opined that there are two problems associated with overweight vehicles - weight and speed - and pointed out that motor homes do not drive nearly as fast as carriers, which are the ones hauling weights in excess of 30,000 pounds overweight. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with that point, but remarked that he knows how easy it is to end up being a couple of thousand pound overweight. On the issue of speed, he asked whether the intention is to either post signage regarding speed or limit speed during certain times. MR. GOVAARS said the only time a driver would be required to drive a certain speed would be when he/she has obtained an overweight permit. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that speed restrictions would have a huge impact on the industry. MR. GOVAARS indicated that the sponsor would be willing to look at any proposed amendments on that issue. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 266. 2:58:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, noting that he wished to amend it, turned attention to Amendment 1, which, in its unamended form read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2 Delete Lines 6 - 12 Renumber subsections REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, as amended to read: Page 2 Delete Lines 6 - 10 Renumber subsections REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Anderson whether he thinks a truck that's driving three tons overweight isn't a safety consideration. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON pointed out that Amendment 1, as amended, is merely eliminating the proposed increase in fines for trucks driving up to 6,000 pound overweight, not the existing fines for those trucks. REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified that he is asking whether driving 6,000 pounds overweight is enough of a safety consideration that updating the current fee structure for those trucks is justified. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that it isn't. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the average payload of "an eighteen wheeler" is. MR. BELL said the payload is determinate on the type of vehicle, adding that the average gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is in the neighborhood of between 80,000 and 120,000 pounds. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that a "payload" would be about "half of that." MR. BELL concurred. 3:01:56 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson and Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended. Representatives McGuire, Kott, Dahlstrom, Gruenberg, and Gara voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-5. 3:02:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the reference to AS 12.55.035(c)(1)(D) pertains to. VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, offered her understanding that it pertains to the current criminal fine structure. MR. THOMPSON remarked, "That defines the violation." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Sections 4 and 6 of the bill, and offered his understanding that Section 4 proposes to change what he termed a substantive rule and so would therefore not require a two-thirds vote. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which would be conditional such that if Rule 43.6 of the Alaska Rules of Administration is not a procedural rule, that Section 6 be deleted. CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that Conceptual Amendment 2, if it is adopted by the committee, would take effect if [Legislative Legal and Research Services] determines that changing Rule 43.6 does not require a two-thirds vote. 3:05:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what would happen if the response from Legislative Legal and Research Services is not definitive. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants Conceptual Amendment 2 to only take effect if [Legislative Legal and Research Services] is 100 percent sure that a two-thirds vote will not be required. MR. GOVAARS indicated that he would be amenable to leaving that determination up to Legislative Legal and Research Services. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "My motion is, 'Let's go with whatever they recommend'; let's call it to their attention." REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that he is reluctant to adopt a conditional amendment, adding that he would rather the research be done before the bill is heard in the House Finance Committee, which could then perhaps amend the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would be comfortable with that. CHAIR McGUIRE concurred. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. 3:06:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 266(TRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(TRA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|