Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1998 02:12 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSHB 343(TRA) - DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor of HB 343, explained the bill
exempts an operator of a commercial vehicle, who is relocating the
vehicle from the principal place of business to a job site within
a 150 mile radius, from the commercial driver's license
requirement. Federal law does not require operators of off road
vehicles, not being used for a transportation purpose, to have a
commercial driver's license; Representative Davis believed this
provision was inadvertently omitted from state statute. The focus
of the bill is narrow as it only applies to operators of loaders,
motor graders, paving machines, and any vehicle over 16,000 pounds.
SENATOR HALFORD agreed with Representative Davis' purpose, but
questioned how HB 343 will apply to a company that contracts to
pave an unconnected road more than 150 miles away, such as the
Naknek-King Salmon Road. He also asked if DOTPF supports the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said DOTPF supports the bill.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if DOTPF would support the bill without the
150 mile radius limit or with that limit if connected by road.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought Senator Halford's point about remote
sites was well taken and should be given consideration. He
discussed another scenario that would not be covered by HB 343, in
which a company might barge equipment to Seward from Southeast and
then transport the equipment by road. He repeated this bill is
very narrow in its focus.
Number 436
SENATOR HALFORD asked what DOTPF's position has been, and what the
federal law requires. He questioned whether the owner's principal
place of business could be changed to the community where the job
site is located.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the federal regulations used by the state
to establish its statute related to requirements for commercial
drivers licenses. The federal law required that commercial drivers
license regulations address the issue of an operator's job function
rather than job title.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to change the phrase "owner's principal place
of business" to "owner's principal job office" to specify the
office of a particular project.
SENATOR GREEN suggested leaving the existing language as is but
adding the words, "or project office."
Number 472
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated his agreement with the proposed
amendment.
VICE-CHAIR WILKEN noted without objection, the proposed amendment
was adopted.
Number 482
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, representing Teamsters Local 959, made the
following comments in opposition to HB 343 via teleconference. If
HB 343 applied to individuals qualified to drive particular types
of equipment over 26,000 pounds, the Teamsters would not oppose
this bill. The Teamsters' concern is that many of its workers are
required to possess a commercial drivers license (CDL) for several
purposes. A CDL requires a driver to be trained to operate a
particular piece of equipment under certain conditions and to know
the permitting process. The fact that HB 343 will not require an
operator driving a vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds to have a
CDL does not preclude the requirement for a temporary permit in the
movement of commercial vehicles on a public highway. Second, the
Teamsters Local 959 represents members who load and unload cargo at
the Port of Anchorage. Various types of equipment move in and out
of the shipyards quickly to enable the barges to get back on the
waterways. All Teamsters in that area are required to have a CDL
even though there is a public highway between the Sealand and Tote
(ph) yards and the ship area. The Teamsters believe that operator
standards should be required for safety reasons because a lot of
public traffic will be using that area. Current regulation allows
for "incidental" movement without a CDL, which has been interpreted
by the Teamsters to mean crossing a public roadway by happen chance
but not actually putting a vehicle right in the midst of a public
roadway. MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS repeated that operators need to meet
certain standards in order to ensure the protection of the public.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS advised that most of the Teamsters' concerns
have been taken care of. Regarding operations around ports,
federal regulations indicate that the exclusions in HB 343 are not
allowable when commercial vehicles are moved in the furtherance of
a transportation purpose, therefore operators of large loaders
unloading cargo from ships would not be exempted from the CDL
requirement. He suggested if HB 343 is amended to include the same
transportation purpose, a definition will need to be included.
Representative Davis explained nothing in HB 343 releases the
permitting requirement for over width or overweight vehicles
traveling on the highways. Those vehicles will need a permit as
well as pilot vehicles and proper flagging equipment. Regarding
the safety concerns expressed by Ms. Huff-Tuckness, drivers taking
the CDL test drive trucks when being tested, not specialized
equipment. No part of the CDL test requires the applicant to show
proficiency in operating this type of equipment. The problem of
crossing traffic does count: an operator crossing the highway from
one gravel pit to another could be stopped by a police officer and
ticketed for not having a CDL; HB 343 is intended to correct that
situation. The 150 mile limit is arbitrary and was plagiarized
from the agricultural vehicle regulations; it was included so that
some restrictions would apply.
VICE-CHAIR WILKEN asked Ms. Hensley if deleting the 150 mile radius
provision will conflict with federal regulations.
SENATOR HALFORD thought that question was resolved by adding the
job office language. He explained to Ms. Hensley that phrase was
added to cover the movement of vehicles barged to remote projects.
TAPE 98-10, SIDE B
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, replied from a safety standpoint,
driving special mobile equipment on public highways will create a
danger but from a driver licensing standpoint, the provision will
not conflict with the federal Driver License Act. She added an
applicant for a CDL must meet a minimum age requirement. She noted
the 150 mile radius provision also raises safety concerns.
SENATOR HALFORD responded his concern was not with the 150 mile
limit, it was with the principal office.
VICE-CHAIR WILKEN noted by the definition of special mobile
equipment under Title 13, one could not drive any of those vehicles
very far.
SENATOR HALFORD stated the equipment cannot be designed for
transportation of passengers or property on a highway, therefore
one can assume this equipment cannot be licensed for highway use.
MS. HENSLEY indicated the equipment is not safe for regular travel
on the roadway because of weight and safety concerns.
VICE-CHAIR WILKEN stated page 2 of the sponsor statement contains
a list of the kinds of special mobile equipment.
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated the purpose of the permitting process
is to address safety concerns to the extent possible.
SENATOR HALFORD pointed out three or four bills in the Legislature
deal with motor vehicle issues: the definition of commercial motor
vehicles; power units; trailers; and weight limitations. Some of
the legislation amends other legislation in the process. He
questioned whether the order of action on the bills will have the
affect of repealing the first bills signed by the Governor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied he ran into that problem when drafting
this legislation and attempted to use language in this bill
consistent with that used by DMV.
SENATOR GREEN clarified that the order in which the bills are
transmitted to the Governor is the key to whether the provisions of
any of the bills will negate the others.
SENATOR HALFORD asked the sponsor to check the other pieces of
legislation to determine whether the bill will require a floor
amendment.
Number 522
SENATOR GREEN moved SCSCSHB 343(TRA) from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|