Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/20/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB371 | |
| HB378 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 378 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 371 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 378-DRIVER LICENSING
2:12:55 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 378, "An Act relating to motor vehicle
registration; relating to drivers' licenses; relating to
instruction permits; relating to commercial motor vehicles and
commercial motor carriers; and providing for an effective date."
2:13:11 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the House Transportation Standing
Committee, Representative Wilson, Chair, stated that HB 378
would add additional safety related improvements to the
commercial permitting requirements in order to comply with
federal mandates. The improvements would include raising the
minimum age to obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL)
learner's permit from 17 to 18 years of age. Additionally, it
would limit the period of the CDL learner's permit validity time
from two years to 180 days with an opportunity to renew for an
additional 180 days. She offered her belief that HB 378 will
make the highways safer by allowing the DMV the right to refuse
to register a motor carrier that does not meet federal safety
requirements. Further, a CDL permit will be disqualified in the
same manner as a license if the driver is operating while non-
compliant with federal safety regulations, is operating out of
service, or has been convicted of manslaughter or negligent
homicide resulting from driving a motor vehicle or for the
commission of a felony using a motor vehicle. Under the bill,
texting while driving will be considered a serious traffic
violation, which could result in a CDL operator losing his/her
license or permit for a period of time.
2:15:15 PM
MS. ROONEY advised that if parts of this bill are not passed,
Alaska will be out of compliance with federal regulations. Non-
compliance could result in the federal government decertifying
Alaska's CDL program, which could jeopardize Alaska's federal
highway funding. She related that based on 2014 apportionments
DOT&PF reports it could mean a $34 million loss of federal
funding. Additional language would also clarify that the
registration fees charged for vehicles over 10,000 pounds for
personal use have the same rates as commercial vehicles.
Although the bill does not change the current fee schedules, it
emphasizes that all vehicles over 10,000 pounds will pay
commercial fee rates for registration.
2:16:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS suggested that texting while operating
commercial vehicles should result in CDL license revocation
since commercial drivers should be held to a higher standard and
those drivers should not be texting.
2:17:51 PM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated she personally
concurred with Representative Gattis.
2:18:25 PM
MS. ERICKSON emphasized the importance to keep the commercial
driver's licensing in compliance. She then provided a section-
by-section analysis of HB 378. Section 1 would give the DMV the
ability to refuse to register a vehicle if the owner has failed
to comply with federal reporting requirements. Currently the
DMV does not have authority to refuse to register a vehicle if
it has been placed out of service and the DMV was found out of
compliance in this area by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA).
MS. ERICKSON stated that Section 2 would allow the DMV to
suspend or revoke a registration of a vehicle if the carrier or
the vehicle has been placed out of service by the FMCSA.
Section 3, related to fees, would clarify that vehicle
registration for residents 65 years and older applies only to
those vehicles under 10,000 pounds. This provision is in
statute, but the provision is reconfigured in the bill.
2:19:29 PM
MS. ERICKSON related that Section 4 would clarify the fees for
vehicles for non-commercial vehicle that weigh less than 10,000
pounds do not change. Section 5 would establish the free fees
except for low-speed trucks, vans, or trailers are based on the
vehicle's weight. As Ms. Rooney previously highlighted, the
fees for those vehicles will now be comparable so all of the
fees will be based on vehicle weight if they are over 10,000
pounds. This change stems from complaints the Ombudsman's
office received on fees on vehicles over 10,000 pounds. Since
the complainant's vehicle was registered under his/her personal
name, the operator objected to paying commercial fees. The
statutes set rates for vehicles under 10,000 at $100 and
vehicles over 10,000 at $268. This section will make it clear
the fee structure is based on weight.
2:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked whether the farm exemption will
still apply.
MS. ERICKSON answered this bill would not change farm vehicles.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that it would make it more
consistent for commercial vehicle enforcement, as well.
2:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON answered that last year the legislature
passed a provision that exempted vehicles up to 14,500 pounds.
He asked for further clarification on how this bill would affect
the exemption.
MS. ERICKSON clarified that that the aforementioned bill would
relate to the commercial vehicle enforcement while HB 378 is
limited only to fees.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON appreciated this clarification, but he
suggested that this might be confusing for enforcement officers.
He suggested this bill could create inconsistencies in the
vehicle forms. He maintained his concern.
2:23:20 PM
DAN SMITH, Director, Anchorage Office, Division of Measurement
Standards & Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (DMSCVE), Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that
commercial vehicle enforcement for regulating intra-state
vehicles uses either a gross vehicle weight rating or gross
combination weight rating. This bill relates to unladen weight
but the commercial enforcement is based on the gross vehicle
weight rating as set by the manufacturer.
2:24:08 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether this bill will cause questions
with respect to enforcement.
MR. SMITH responded that the vehicle enforcement officers check
for valid registration; however, the division does not enforce
the type of regulation the committee is considering. He did not
believe it will add any confusion for his enforcement officers.
2:24:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON expressed concern that the 14,500 pound
limit might pose issues. He wondered if an enforcement officer
would need to consider whether any violation exists if the
officer or trooper pulls someone over and discover the vehicle
registration is for a commercial vehicle. For example, the
officer might notice that the driver doesn't have the gross
vehicle weight posted or certain equipment affixed permanently.
MR. SMITH related that this section relates to the fees for
registration and it will not cause problems for the commercial
vehicle enforcement officer or others who may be trained to
perform commercial vehicle enforcement. During the driver
interview, the enforcement officer will be interested in the
origin, destination, hazardous material, size of the load, and
weight of the load. Further, the officer would also be
gathering other facts, such as driver qualifications, medical
fitness cards, and proof of insurance. Changes to registration
fees would not adversely affect the interview or dictate the
outcome, he said.
2:27:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the registration shown to
the traffic officer would identify the vehicle as commercial or
if it will be generic.
MS. ERICKSON offered her belief that the registration fees will
appear just like any regular vehicle registration form. It
would list vehicle registration fees at $100, and motor vehicle
registration taxes (MVRT) at $70, along with the total of $170.
He did not believe the registration form highlights commercial
fees, but just shows the registration fee amount.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered to follow up later.
MS. ERICKSON added that this provision is DMV's policy. The
division has been charging fees for commercial motor vehicles
over 10,000 pounds since 1978. The division was questioned
about the fees by the ombudsman's office and this bill attempts
to make specific fees clearer for the public since some
complaints have been filed.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that the fee schedule seems
clear to her.
2:29:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS remarked that only a few people are
involved in farming in Alaska. In her experience, farmers avoid
weigh stations; however, she was aware of vehicle enforcement
issues that have arisen when farmers have hauled fence pipes,
which are the same pipes that drillers use. She acknowledged it
can be a difficult struggle to differentiate between commercial
and non-commercial carriers. She said that farmers tend to
carry the rules in their vehicle glove boxes to help clarify the
laws related to farming for weigh station officers. She
remarked that Alaska isn't a huge agricultural state. She
pointed out that it is tough to train everyone on small minute
rules. She hoped that last year's law will not affect anything
beyond the fees.
MS. ERICKSON continued with the section-by-section review of HB
378. She reported that page 6 of Section 7, will add the fee
structure into the MVRT chart. She related that Section 8 will
clarify that this applies to non-commercial instruction permits
and allows a person to obtain an instruction permit for a
certain class of license after five years. Currently, the DMV
cannot revert back to an instructional permit if the person has
previously held that class of license. For example, a woman who
suffered a brain injury and held a CDL license was not able to
drive for several years during her recovery. She needed an
instructional permit to allow her to practice, but the DMV could
not issue the license. This section allows the DMV to issue a
license for a certain class of license, such as a CDL, but also
allows the person to obtain an instructional permit to practice
for a different class of vehicle. In response to a question,
she agreed that the DMV would be allowed to issue a non-
commercial instructional permit and the person could obtain a
renewal after five years has passed.
2:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS related a scenario in which an injured
person had previously held a license since he/she was 16. She
said the person is now 45 years old but needs an instructional
permit to practice to pass the commercial driver's license test.
She was unsure where the five years fits in for renewal.
MS. ERICKSON answered that currently a person cannot get an
instructional permit if he/she previously held a license. She
related the license term is for five years. Thus, licenses are
issued for a five-year period and the renewal period would be
for five years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS described a personal scenario in which
this provision would have been very helpful.
2:35:00 PM
MS. ERICKSON related that Section 9 was added to meet federal
compliance and will require an applicant for commercial
instructional permit to be 18 years of age instead of 17. It
would also modify the statute for federal compliance by limiting
the validity of an instruction permit to 180 days with a renewal
of 180 days, which was previously two years.
2:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 8, noting a person at
least 21 years old must accompany the driver even though it is
for commercial instruction. He did not see a similar
requirement for Section 9.
MS. ERICKSON responded that this is an omission that will need
to be fixed in the bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON indicated she plans on holding the bill since
several provisions will need to be fixed.
2:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to Section 9 that reduces the
license period from two years to 180 days. He questioned
whether the person obtaining the CDL will acquire an experience
driving in snow since he/she could conceivably not have had
winter driving experience. He wondered how this would help keep
drivers and the public safer.
MS. ERICKSON was unsure of how to respond. She pointed out that
the person can renew his/her license and thereby holds the
license for a full year.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested the person could also apply
for a CDL without renewing his/her instructional permit.
MS. ERICKSON agreed, but if the driver passes the CDL test
he/she would be licensed and able to drive.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON expressed the concern that this change
could set up a situation that might lead to more accidents and
not make Alaska's highways safer. In the aforementioned
scenario, the DMV will not be able to verify the person's
ability to drive an "18 wheeler." The person may be qualified
to drive but may not been tested in snow or icy conditions.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that currently the
potential driver doesn't have to have any instructional permit
and this bill would add it.
MS. ERICKSON reiterated the person has to be a qualified driver
and must pass the driving test to become licensed.
2:39:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that this could apply to anyone
seeking any driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related his understanding that the bill
increases the provisional license requirements to 18 years of
age. He wondered if it was possible for a person to have a CDL
and not be 18 years of age and only have a learner's permit for
his/her personal license, which seems inconsistent. However, he
suggested that the DMV consider requiring winter driving
experience.
2:40:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for further clarification on the
minimum age for a CDL.
MS. ERICKSON answered that the minimum age is 19 for intra-state
commerce and 21 years of age for inter-state commerce.
2:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the prior rule was for two
years, but the federal government is setting the standard at 180
days.
MS. ERICKSON answered that she does not know the logic for the
change since this pertains to federal law.
2:41:31 PM
MS. ERICKSON related that Section 10 will allow the DMV to
disqualify a commercial driver who is a permit holder in the
same manner as if the driver held a commercial license. Section
11 would add provisions to comply with federal regulations and
makes operating a vehicle that has been placed out of service
subject to civil penalties. Section 12 would add texting to the
list of serious traffic violations for which a driver could be
disqualified. Section 13 would define commercial motor carrier
and Section 14 would establishment an effective date for federal
compliance that will take effect the day after the bill is
signed by the governor. Finally, Section 15 would set the
effective date for the fees on January 1, 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS remarked that she would like the sponsor
to consider a stiffer fine for texting. She offered her belief
that a commercial driver has a higher obligation to the public
to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 9, lines 10-11 of Section
11. He wondered what the language "in violation of a railroad-
highway grade crossing" refers to in existing law.
MS. ERICKSON said she did not know.
2:44:02 PM
JOANNE OLSEN, Division Operations Manager, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, responded that
certain commercial vehicles are mandated to stop at any railroad
crossing, such as school buses, passenger buses, tour buses, and
vehicles hauling a certain amount of hazardous materials.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that she thinks it is a good idea to
have that provision in the law.
2:45:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 8, line 24 of Section 10.
He asked whether driving after being placed out of service
refers to the person or the vehicle.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that it addresses this
in three separate instances: driving after being placed out of
service, operating a commercial vehicle that has been placed out
of service, or operating a commercial vehicle belonging to a
commercial motor carrier that has been placed out of service.
MS. ERICKSON answered that it would apply to the driver, the
vehicle, and also the carrier if the commercial motor vehicle
has been placed out of service.
MR. SMITH added that the responsibility for driving while being
placed out of service would fall on the operator of the vehicle.
2:47:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested the language is somewhat vague
and could be clearer.
MR. SMITH explained that a driver may be placed out of service
if he/she is no longer able to drive. The driver may tell the
officer he/she is not feeling well or is incapacitated. The
vehicle may be out of service due to the vehicle's mechanical
condition, if the load is not property secured, or the driver
may not have qualifications to operate the vehicle.
Additionally, the company may be out of service for incurring a
long history of violations such as employing drivers not
qualified to operate their vehicles. He advised that this
language attempts to cover all possible scenarios.
2:48:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to the paragraph (7), which read,
in part"..., or operating a commercial vehicle belonging to a
commercial motor carrier that has been placed out of
service...." He asked how the driver would know the motor
carrier was placed out-of-state. He further asked whether a
requirement should require proof that the driver knows.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that is a good thought.
2:49:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON commented he registered a vehicle on the
webpage and it was very simple. He wondered if this seems to
"cave in" to federal requirements since the state could lose
federal funds. He asked for the number of times the state has
lost funds due to non-compliance.
MS. ERICKSON answered that the department is not aware of any
instances. She acknowledged this was a policy discussion the
department also held. For example, the department considered
whether these regulations are so onerous that the state is
willing to face non-compliance and a loss of federal funding.
She advised that the department did not find the regulations too
onerous.
2:51:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related that the DMV's regulations were
proposed in October 2013 with an effective date of July 8, 2014;
however Section 15 has an effective date of January 2015. He
then acknowledged some sections have an immediate effective date
so he stands corrected. He suggested these must be the sections
related to federal compliance.
2:52:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to page 2, line 19, which read,
"(12) the applicant is a commercial motor carrier prohibited
from operating by a federal agency." He expressed concern that
the federal government would dictate intra-state transportation.
He referred to existing law on page 1, line 6, of Section 1
which read, "(a) The department may refuse to register a vehicle
if ...." Thus, the department may refuse to register a vehicle.
He asked whether the agency has some discretion on whether to
register a vehicle even if the federal government prohibits it
from operating.
MS. ERICKSON answered yes; the language reads "may" refuse to
register a vehicle so the department has discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to Section 2, which again
indicates that the department "may" so it appears the department
has discretion in that section. He asked what would happen if
the DMV enabled a carrier to operate in Alaska. He asked
whether the state would be in violation of federal law and risk
not receiving $34 million in federal funding.
2:55:13 PM
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, offered
her belief that federal road safety rules apply in instances in
which federal funds are used, which is often the case for state
roads and federal roads. She anticipated that the person who
supervises the application for federal funding would be in a
better position to answer. She thought that there would be two
components to consider: federal inter-state regulation and
safety regulation for roads involved in inter-state travel and
another provision of federal funding for Alaska's roads.
2:56:32 PM
ANMEI GOLDSMITH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, related her understanding in terms
of federal funding, that if the state's statutes and regulations
are out of compliance, the state stands a chance of losing a
portion of the basic program funds. This bill would bring the
state into compliance; however, if the state doesn't enforce it,
enforces it badly, or makes a few mistakes, it will not likely
jeopardize funding. She said that funding would only be
jeopardized if the state fails to pass the bill and continue to
be out of compliance.
2:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON returned to his earlier concern about
the commercial vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds. Since this bill
uses the language "commercial vehicle" throughout and includes a
vehicle of 10,000 pounds or more of unladen weight. He asked
whether the state is sure it is not categorizing a vehicle that
is 10,000 pounds or more as a commercial vehicle.
MS. ERICKSON answered no. She explained that this bill is
strictly for the purpose of fees. She explained that commercial
vehicles are defined for enforcement purposes ranging from
14,500 to 26,000 pounds.
2:58:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON highlighted one purpose of the bill is
to make Alaska's highways safer. He asked how many accidents
have happened or a history of accidents that necessitate these
changes.
MS. ERICKSON was not aware of any crash data.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON suggested it would be helpful to have
the crash data.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that DMV will probably not have crash
data and the committee may need to obtain it elsewhere.
2:59:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked whether the bill will help to ensure
that Alaska's law conforms to federal law in order to be in
compliance and be eligible for federal funds.
MS. ERICKSON answered yes. She said in some ways it is about
the federal funds, but it is also about strengthening the CDL
programs nationwide. Alaska wants to be consistent with other
states' laws and requirements.
2:59:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS suggested that the state is working to
nationalize the CDL testing.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to Section 1 and emphasized that the
department "may" refuse to register a vehicle under certain
conditions.
3:01:00 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
Inc. (ATA), stated that the number one issue, referring to line
19, page 2, which read, "(12) the applicant is a commercial
motor carrier prohibited from operating by a federal agency."
He said that federal agencies can only issue out of service
orders for interstate and cannot issue out of service orders for
intra-state carrier since the federal agency does not have any
jurisdiction.
MR. THOMPSON referred to page 3, line 24, which read:
(12 The owner or operator is a commercial motor
carrier prohibited from operating by a federal agency;
or
(13) the commercial motor vehicle is subject to an
out-of-service order issued by a state or federal
agency.
MR. THOMPSON asked whether paragraph (13) speaks to the
commercial motor vehicle order issued by a state or federal
covers intrastate commerce but not the owner or motor
carrier.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that is why the aforementioned
language reads "may."
3:03:38 PM
MR. THOMPSON referred to page 7, to proposed Section 9. He
recalled that Representative Feige earlier referred to a 21 year
old being present in the cab while a commercial instructional
permittee is driving. He said the ATA agrees 100 percent with
this provision. He recalled on page 8, line 24, again
Representative Feige asked the question of how the driver will
know. He respectfully requested the committee consider adding
"knowingly" in two clauses to clarify the driver's intent.
First, on page 9, paragraph (7), which would read, in part.
"...knowingly driving after being placed out of service" and
"knowingly operating a commercial vehicle belonging to a
commercial motor carrier that has been placed out of service
...." Finally, he referred to page 9, line 7, which "or who
knowingly operates...."
MS. ERICKSON deferred to the Department of Law to respond.
3:05:43 PM
MS. GOLDSMITH remarked that inserting "knowingly" in those three
places is something she will think about and discuss with
enforcement. She said she really can't give the legislature an
answer right now. However, she can say that when the vehicles
out of service, the officer will place a big orange sticker on
the windshield so it is pretty difficult to not know if the
person is driving a vehicle that has been placed out of service.
She offered to further consider the ATA's issue.
CHAIR P. WILSON wondered how difficult it would be to remove the
sticker.
MS. ERICKSON turned to the fee section on page 4 of HB 378. She
said a motor home is listed [in paragraph (2)] with fees set at
$100; however, there are some motor homes that are used for
commercial use. She suggested that adding the language, "not
used or maintained for the transportation of persons or property
for hire or other commercial use."
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the committee would likely develop
a committee substitute.
3:07:57 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 378.
[HB 378 was held over.}
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 378 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB0378A.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB 378 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 378 |
| HB 371 Smith Letter 2 3-19-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB_371 Mylius 3-19-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB371_miliusmillessmith_response3-20-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Support Johansen.msg |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371Support M Miller.msg |
HTRA 3/20/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |