Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/01/1998 03:22 PM House L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 158(L&C) - INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC. Number 1855 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business was CSSB 158(L&C), "An Act relating to motor vehicle liability insurance covering a person who has had the person's driver's license revoked for possession or consumption of alcohol while under 21 years of age." RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, came forward to present SB 158. Mr. Bennett read the sponsor statement: The "use it or lose it" provisions of current statute have had an unintended consequence. Minors who lose their drivers licenses for minor consuming offenses often find themselves and their families with increased insurance premiums and occasionally a (policy) cancellation. Senate Bill 158 would correct this situation by prohibiting an insurer from raising rates and/or cancelling existing policies solely for suspension of a minor's drivers license as a result of minor consuming where not involving driving. This narrowly focused version of SB 158 does not address other offenses such as DWI, using false ID, or possession of controlled substances. MR. BENNETT read the January 1, 1998, sectional analysis prepared by Joe Ambrose, Legislative Assistant to Senator Taylor. This sectional analysis read: Section 1 adds language to the existing statute stating that AS 21.36.210(a)(2) does not apply to an administrative revocation as described in AS 21.89.027, the new section which begins on page 2 of the bill. AS 21.36.210(a) specifies why an insurer may cancel a policy: nonpayment of premium or suspension or revocation of a drivers license. Section 2 is the operative section of the bill and adds a new provision to state law. (a) says an insurer may not refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle liability insurance, cancel an existing policy, deny a covered claim, or increase the premium only because of an administrative or court ordered suspension for minor consuming. (b) says that (a) does not prevent an insurer from underwriting or rating a loss in the same manner as it would have had the suspension not occurred. Section 3 says the bill would apply to policies issued or renewed on or after the effective date. This would mean that policies currently being charged a higher rate would have to be adjusted at the next renewal. MR. BENNETT stated the bill corrected unintended consequences of the "use or lose it" provision in current law. It prohibited an increase or cancellation of insurance solely because of license suspension for minor consuming and did not include offenses involving operation of a motor vehicle or other offenses such as driving while intoxicated (DWI), use of false identification (ID), or possession of controlled substances. The legislation only covered revocation or suspension by either administrative or court action for minor consuming. Mr. Bennett stated, "Rate increases often affect parents' insurance, choice of dropping a kid from the policy, permanent revocation, or paying a higher premium." He indicated representatives from the Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, and the Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, were present to answer questions. Number 1995 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he had been given a possible committee substitute and asked Mr. Bennett to explain. Chairman Rokeberg indicated CSSB 158(L&C), Version L, labeled 0-LS0839\L, engrossed, was before the committee [the possible committee substitute was work draft Version P, labeled 0-LS0839\P, Ford, dated 4/1/98]. Number 2010 MR. BENNETT stated the new possible committee substitute was based on negotiations with the insurance industry [copies of Version P were distributed to the committee]. He said it was Senator Taylor's belief they could come to an accommodation in the next day or two. Mr. Bennet stated, "The industry is concerned about the situation that would arise where a person's license has been revoked, either administratively or through a court proceeding, but they're driving anyway illegally." Mr. Bennett indicated the industry had legitimate concerns and he thought a "simple wording fix" would address that, but Senator Taylor did not wish to make this change until he had a chance to discuss it with the industry and the departments together. Mr. Bennett said they would like to have the bill held over. Number 2050 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he had brought up Version P so the committee would be aware during the testimony. Number 2060 MR. BENNETT said the possible committee substitute had been developed that morning and was not necessarily finalized; he indicated it might be changed with further negotiations the following day. Number 2084 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if SB 158 had another House committee referral. Number 2088 MR. BENNETT replied the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 2096 JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII), came forward to testify. He stated he represented Allstate Insurance Company, GEICO, USAA (United Service Automobile Association) and other companies. He reiterated the prior testimony, commenting, "We're working, we're doing some fine tuning, we're pretty close. I think we all agree conceptually on what needs to be done, we're just not quite there yet. So if it'd be your intent to hold it, I think we'll testify when we get something that we actually ... can all agree on." Number 2015 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee might not take a lot of testimony if the bill was brought up again. Number 2124 MR. GEORGE said NAII was concerned about people who actually drove while they did not have licenses. He said the statutory cites in the bill included some things he believed were violations while driving and he noted he thought the sponsor's intent was to only cover "while not driving." Mr. George indicated a minor language change might be necessary and he thought his organization would be in support of the bill when the agreed-upon proposed committee substitute was brought forward. Number 2148 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Section 2, subsection (b) of CSSB 158(L&C) [Version L]. He stated, "Notwithstanding the fact, you can't cancel the insurance or deny coverage or anything else. You could still rate the insurance and increase the premium, is that correct?" Section 2 of CSSB 158(L&C) read: *Sec. 2. AS 21.89 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 21.89.027. Motor vehicle insurance following driver's license revocation. (a) Notwithstanding AS 21.36.210, an insurer offering insurance in this state may not (1) refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle liability insurance coverage; (2) cancel an existing policy of motor vehicle liability insurance; (3) deny a covered claim; or (4) increase the premium on a motor vehicle liability insurance policy if the refusal, cancellation, denial, or increase results only from the fact that the person's driver's license was revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with substantially similar elements. (b) The provisions of (a) of this section may not prevent an insurer from underwriting or rating for a loss experience in the same manner as it would for a person who has not had the person's driver's license revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185. Number 2162 MR. GEORGE indicated he did not have a copy of Version L in front of him, but said, "It's my understanding ... that you could not increase the premium on the policy, cancel it, fail to renew, or deny a covered claim if the revocation was for -- the intent was non-driving related incident. If you're at a party, the kid gets caught with a beer in his hand, his license is revoked, and they chose that because that's something [that's] really important to a kid, but it's not a driving incident, and ... we're willing to buy off on the fact that it's not driving so you don't rate their insurance for that. Except if he's driving after that, then we think ... we ought to be able to rate for that, and the way it was originally drafted, we think we might be precluded from canceling the policy if they've got this unlicensed kid driving the car while he's got an administrative revocation." He commented that was NAII's intent. He noted they were finding these very small flaws that they were working on and he thought they would come up with a solution. Number 2204 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave the situation of four or five vehicles owned in a family and one member receiving a speeding citation. He asked if the whole policy would be penalized for that. Number 2225 MR. GEORGE said he was not an insurance agent; he had a lot of experience with regulating insurance. He stated it was his understanding they would be rated on one vehicle but could not swear to that. Number 2235 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he did not believe that was the case. MR. GEORGE said he was willing to accept he was wrong. Number 2244 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated someone might own several vehicles for different uses, noting he and his wife had four vehicles, and if his wife received a ticket driving her car, the premiums on all four vehicles would increase. He stated he did not think that was fair or equitable, noting he didn't know if they could work something out with this bill. Number 2266 MR. GEORGE stated there was legislation passed into law the previous year which required an insurance company to exclude a named driver upon request by the insured. He indicated this could be used to avoid paying the premium for a "wayward" child still living at home by excluding the child from the policy by name. He indicated the child would not be covered if he or she drove the vehicle, and he thought Representative Cowdery could exclude his wife this way from three of the vehicles, noting Representative Cowdery would probably not want to do that. Number 2295 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed both the vehicle and the person were insured. He confirmed a vehicle, a person, and the two together could be rated. MR. GEORGE replied the coverage applied a number of different ways. If a person owned a vehicle, there was coverage for an accident with that vehicle no matter who was driving it if that person had the owner's permission. If the owner of an insured vehicle was driving a car owned by someone without insurance, the owner of the insured vehicle would be covered while driving that non-insured vehicle. He stated, "It covers you as a named person no matter whose car you're driving, and it covers your car no matter who is driving it." He indicated there were other policies which worked differently, but this was the norm. He stated, "You can buy a policy that only covers you while driving the specified vehicle ...." Number 2333 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if someone could exclude his wife even if she had not had a ticket. MR. GEORGE said he believed so, but only theoretically. Number 2345 MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company, came forward to testify. He said their primary concern was that the legislation, as written, included driving situations and Senator Taylor's focus had to do with non-driving situations. Mr. Lessmeier said the bill specifically referred to AS 28.15.183 and AS 28.15.185, noting AS 28.15.183 included someone who operated a vehicle after consuming alcohol in violation of AS 28.35.280. He added that AS 28.15.185 would include someone who refused to take a breathalyser test after he or she was suspected of driving while under the influence. Mr. Lessmeier said one of the difficulties, which he thought Senator Rick Halford had brought up on the floor, was insurance was not that complicated. Mr. Lessmeier indicated insurers rated for risk and State Farm Insurance Company wanted to be able to do so. He indicated they had been discussing language to narrow the bill so that what the insurers would be prevented from doing was rating for the person who had consumed alcohol in a non-driving offense. Mr. Lessmeier indicated this was for a minor consuming in a non-driving situation, so the family would not be penalized and the minor would not be penalized later. He mentioned they did have a concern that sometimes non-driving related behavior carried over into driving behavior. Number 2429 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this was embodied in Version P, or if they were "still tuning on it." MR. LESSMEIER replied they were still tuning, noting he had seen Version P only shortly before the hearing. He stated, "Basically it would involve inserting language saying, quote, "in a non- driving related incident" in 'paragraph' 1 and I think that would take care of it. We would insert that language after line 10, "consumption of alcohol" and then we would insert the words, "in a non-driving related incident" ...." Mr. Lessmeier confirmed he was referring to Version P, the work draft, stating, "It would be page 2, line 10 ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] Page 2, line 10, in subsection (a), Version P, read: "consumption of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with". With Mr. Lessmeier's suggested change the language would read: "consumption of alcohol in a non-driving related incident in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with". Section 2 in work draft Version P read: *Sec. 2. AS 21.89 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 21.89.027. Motor vehicle insurance following driver's license revocation. (a) Notwithstanding AS 21.36.210, an insurer offering insurance in this state may not (1) refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle liability insurance coverage; (2) cancel an existing policy of motor vehicle liability insurance; (3) deny a covered claim; or (4) increase the premium on a motor vehicle liability insurance policy if the refusal, cancellation, denial, or increase results only from the fact that the person's driver's license was revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with substantially similar elements. (b) The provisions of (a) of this section (1) may not prevent an insurer from underwriting or rating for a loss experience in the same manner as it would for a person who has not had the person's driver's licensed revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185; and (2) do not apply to a liability insurance policy covering a motor vehicle if the motor vehicle is operated by a person during a period of driver's license revocation imposed on the person under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with substantially similar elements. [Note: subsection (a) of Section 2 was identical in both Version L and Version P, with identical line numbering.] TAPE 98-42, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. LESSMEIER continued, "... Juanita Hensley has some concerns with 'paragraph' 2, but that would address most of our concerns." Number 0040 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, came forward to testify. She questioned whether they were discussing Version P or Version L. Number 0058 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Version L, CSSB 158(L&C), was before the committee. He indicated discussion of Version P would be allowed. MS. HENSLEY noted she had worked with the legislative bodies when the "use it, lose it" law was passed in 1994 and amendments were made in 1996. She stated the testimony through the process and the legislative intent at that time had been to make a license revocation for "use it, lose it" a remedial action, not to penalize. She stated, "It was discussed that we would not require SR-22, high risk insurance, or place these individuals in a high risk bracket and we put it even into Title AS 28.15 at the time of a license reinstatement we would not require the SR-22 because ... a lot of these were non-driving violations and why (indisc.) SR-22 certificate of insurance high risk if they were non-driving violations? The problem was is that it did not get transferred into Title 21 dealing with the Division of Insurance requirements, and that's basically what this bill does. [It] comes back and restates what was stated ... under the 'use it, lose it' law in 1994 and 1996, to place it in the Division of Insurance statutes. It's already in Title 28, the motor vehicle laws, that we would not require it. We've had several parents over the last few years call and complain about the high risk insurance that their insurance companies are charging them because their minor was picked up, as Mr. Lessmeier said, out behind the ... barn ... and they weren't driving." Number 0235 MS. HENSLEY continued, "They could be at a party in possession of alcohol or something and have their license revoked if they were cited for minor consuming or minor in possession of alcohol." She said it had become somewhat punitive in nature as opposed to being remedial. She noted it was punitive to the parents, not necessarily to the minor. Ms. Hensley mentioned an individual in Petersburg, whose name she could research in her records, who experienced an increase in insurance premiums from $900 every six months to $3,600 every six months when the person's 16 1/2 year old teenager was charged with minor consuming in a non-driving situation. She commented that was an example of some of the complaints she had been receiving and indicated she had also heard from legislators calling on behalf of constituents with complaints of that nature. Ms. Hensley said this bill had been introduced to try to remedy that situation. She stated a parent had to give consent for a driver's license for someone under 18 and when parents signed that consent the parents were also signing consent to be financially responsible, to have insurance or have a means of paying for damages that child incurred. Number 0386 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Hensley for the Title 28 provisions she had referred to which had not been put in Title 21 regarding SR-22, et cetera. He commented he would ask Ms. Burke about Title 21. Number 0457 MS. HENSLEY stated it was under AS 28.15.183(e), which read, "(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of AS 28.20.240 and 28.20.250, the department may not require proof of financial responsibility before restoring a driver's license, permit, or privilege that is revoked under this section.". She said AS 28.15.185(d) contained the same language; it read, "(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of AS 28.20.240 and 28.20.250, upon conviction of an offense specified in (a) of this section, the department may not require proof of financial responsibility before restoring or issuing the person's driver's license.". Ms. Hensley said that change had been made in 1995. Number 0522 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether that was merely the proof of having insurance or if it was more than that. Number 0527 MS. HENSLEY replied, "It's proof of financial responsibility for the future which is ... certificate of SR-22." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what made an SR-22, questioning if that was in the statute as citing. MS. HENSLEY responded that AS 28.20.240 or AS 28.20.250 was certificate of insurance and she indicated it required the insurance industry to notify the DMV within ten days of cancellation, and the DMV had to take action on the driver's license if the person canceled that insurance policy during the three-year period the person was required to carry SR-22. AS 28.20.240 and AS 28.20. 250 read: Sec. 28.20.240. Proof required when driving privilege is restricted. Whenever under a law of this state the license of a person is suspended, revoked, limited under AS 28.15.201, or canceled for any reason, the department may not issue to that person a new or renewal of license until permitted to do so under the motor vehicle laws of this state. A period of suspension, revocation, or cancellation continues until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided. Upon expiration of a period of limitation, the license remains revoked until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided. Sec. 28.20.250. Action in respect to unlicensed person. (a) If a person does not have a license, but by final order or judgement is convicted of, or forfeits bail or collateral deposited to secure an appearance for trial for an offense requiring the suspension or revocation of license, or for driving a motor vehicle upon the highways without being licensed to do so, or for driving an unregistered vehicle upon the highways, a license may not be issued to the person unless the person gives and thereafter maintains proof of financial responsibility for the future. (b) Whenever the department suspends or revokes a nonresident's operating privilege for conviction or forfeiture of bail, the privilege remains suspended or revoked unless the person has previously given or immediately give proof of financial responsibility for the future. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So the certificate of insurance under those particular statutory provisions is the SR-22?" He confirmed AS 28.20.240 and AS 28.20.250 were the SR-22. MS. HENSLEY said that was correct. Number 0597 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed Ms. Hensley had a copy of Version P and asked if Mr. Lessmeier's conceptual amendment on page 2, line 10, created problems for her. MS. HENSLEY replied she would have no problem with that for non- driving violations. She said her objection to Version P was subsection (2), under subsection (b), on page 2, lines 16 through 20. Version P, lines 16 through 20, read: (2) do not apply to a liability insurance policy covering a motor vehicle if the motor vehicle is operated by a person during a period of driver's license revocation imposed on the person under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with substantially similar elements. MS. HENSLEY said if the insurance company denied a claim because the minor's license had been revoked under AS 28.15.183 or AS 28.15.185, indicating she believed this subsection allowed that, then, whoever had signed consent for that driver's license would be financially responsible to the victim if that minor was involved in an automobile accident. She commented, "That's a real concern that I have. It - it kind of creates an area ... where I look it as being ... it's going to encourage more parents to - to fall victim under - under this provisions than what I think was intended several years ago under the legislation." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would be possible to have the prime sponsor's representative speak to that. Number 0788 MR. BENNET indicated they would conceptually return to Version L and delete lines 16 through 20 which was subsection (2) under (b) of Version P. He said on page 2, line 10, the words "in a non- driving situation", would be inserted after "alcohol". Mr. Bennett said their discussion would begin from that point. He noted he did not believe subsection (2) under (b) would be required after that change and thought he was in agreement with Ms. Hensley on that. Number 0854 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Henley if her department supported the legislation with that exception. MS. HENSLEY indicated the changes Mr. Bennet mentioned would put the legislation almost back to Version L and her department would have no problem. She said she believed the Division of Insurance had one more language change to Version L. On page 2, line 13, after "rating", deleting the words "for a" and inserting "based upon". Subsection (b) of Section 2 would then read, "(b) The provisions of (a) of this section may not prevent an insurer from underwriting or rating based upon loss experience in the same manner as it would for a person who has not had the person's driver's license revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185.". Number 0934 MARIANNE BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify. She indicated the minor "wordsmithing" Ms. Henley had addressed would clarify an earlier question as to whether or not an insurance company could rate on bases other than license cancellation for non-driving related incidence. She said, for example, if the teenager who had lost his or her driver's license had also been in a number of accidents, that would be legitimate rating basis, and it would have nothing to do with the fact that the teenager's license had been canceled for the non-driving incidence. Ms. Burke stated, "By adding the 'based upon' it clarifies that you can use those legitimate bases you had before, and you can't hide behind the fact that it was non-driving related violation. I'd like to just add to the earlier testimony that this is a very important fix that is needed." She said the division had received numerous complaints about nonrenewal of the policy. She noted there had not been any complaints about increased premiums. Miss Burke informed the committee there were only two reasons an insurance company could "nonrenew" a personal automobile policy: nonpayment of premiums or cancellation of driver's license. She said the insurance companies were canceling or nonrenewing policies because of the provisions of the "use it and lose it," and so the division felt it was important to correct this. Ms. Burke noted the Division of Insurance was in agreement with the proposed changes to Version L discussed earlier, and felt they would make for a stronger, clearer bill. Number 1079 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "A lot has been said about how to cure a problem, but I haven't heard much said about the opportunism of these insurance companies taking advantage of a little crack to reap huge amounts of money. Why is always that people have a tendency not to discuss those things? I think some criticism is due. If a young person has a revocation for drinking behind the barn and four cars' premiums are knocked up by $3,600, I think it's highway robbery, and I think perhaps we should consider a windfall profit tax on that kind of activity. (Indisc.) put it back into maintaining the roads perhaps. ... A buck's a buck, but when you take advantage (indisc.) situation like that, it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he appreciated Representative Ryan's comments and understood his level of frustration, recommending he file legislation if he had a possible solution. Number 1145 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the chairman wished to entertain an amendment. Number 1148 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would wait for another proposed committee substitute from the sponsor. He confirmed with Ms. Burke that under current state law, an insurer could only cancel a policy for nonpayment or revocation of license. MS. BURKE said that was correct. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So they ... can't get out but they can rate you up and charge you highway robbery, to quote some other members of this committee." MS. BURKE replied that was only if it was approved. She suggested the person whose premium increased to $3,600 should file a complaint with the Division of Insurance, noting the division would certainly like to know. She said, "The complaints we have received is they refuse to renew and use as a basis the fact that the license has been revoked." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he would like Ms. Burke to speak to the rating and the division's grievance procedure. MS. BURKE responded the division would encourage the person to obtain the one-page form, if he or she had that premium notice or letter, and send the division a copy. Ms. Burke said the division would investigate it; it was their job and they did it all the time. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the statutory authority would be for the division's investigation. MS. BURKE replied, "Unfair business practices and the fact that they were using a rate that was not approved." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked her to explain the meaning of "a rate that was not approved." Number 1255 MS. BURKE said the rates used by insurance companies had to go through an approval process by the division. She stated, "There are, however, underwriting criteria that they can apply. So, if they used a rate that was approved by us -- first of all, it wouldn't go from 900 [dollars] to 3,600 [dollars] every six months, we would not approve such a rate. However, if they ... had something that had been approved and it was more reasonable, but used unfair underwriting practices, we would be able to get them under ... provisions in [AS] 21.36, which are the unfair trade practices. We encourage people to let us know anytime something like this happens. That's our job and ... I take it very seriously." Number 1311 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted the division approved all rates and asked if all the rates from various companies were similar or if there was a large fluctuation in prices for the same coverage. Number 1327 MS. BURKE said they were basically the same, noting it was very difficult to find two policies that were exactly the same. She commented everyone had their own marketing "bells and whistles." She noted, however, the division kept and closely monitored the statistics on the different portions of the auto insurance. She commented there were medical, liability, comprehensive, "UM (ph) UIM (ph)" portions. Number 1375 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS complimented Ms. Burke for her courage on saying she approved the outrageous rates the insurance companies charged for insurance. Number 1393 MS. HENSLEY of the DMV noted she had one additional comment. She stated, "If a minor ... is caught driving a motor vehicle with any alcohol level ... Alaska's a zero tolerance state for anyone under the age of 21. They are cited for drunk driving, and so that would go on their driving record as a drunk driving offense. And that's under [AS] 28.35.280 and 28.35.285 and 28.35.290. ... So it will be noted on the driving record if they were actually driving [as] an offense, and that is something that could be rated that's separate from the revocation of the ... driver's license." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Just the consumption of alcohol ... they don't have to reach the one point zero, is that correct?" Number 1435 MS. HENSLEY repeated that Alaska had a zero tolerance for anyone under the age of 21, so any level or odor of alcohol was considered drunk driving for someone under 21 years of age. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added, "And subject to all the ... penalties for a DWI." MS. HENSLEY noted a person in this situation would be subject to a lesser penalty; it was an infraction as opposed to a class A misdemeanor. She said the offense was punishable with a $1,000 fine, mandatory treatment and community work service. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that had been part of the "lose it or use it" legislation. MS. HENSLEY replied it was separate. She indicated it had been passed in 1996 because the federal ISTEA [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act] legislation required the state to have a zero tolerance law for anyone under the age of 21. Number 1500 MR. BENNETT returned to the witness stand and assured the committee he would not come back before it without a bill in final form for the committee's consideration. He stated he thought Senator Taylor would give that same guarantee if he were present. He thanked the departments and industry for their assistance. Number 1518 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the bill would have the support of the Administration and the industry, indicating this met with the committee's approval. He stated SB 158 would be held.