03/06/2008 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB78 | |
| HB372 | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 372 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2008
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Mike Doogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 78(JUD)
"An Act relating to the installation of window tinting in
automobiles."
- MOVED CSSB 78(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 372
"An Act relating to highway design flexibility and to the
assumption by municipalities of certain duties related to
highways."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 283
"An Act designating the Alaska Highway and a portion of the
Richardson Highway as the Purple Heart Trail."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act relating to tires with retractable studs."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 78
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRENCH
02/09/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/07 (S) TRA, JUD
03/06/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/06/07 (S) Moved SB 78 Out of Committee
03/06/07 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
03/07/07 (S) TRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/07/07 (S) DP: KOOKESH
03/07/07 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, WILKEN, COWDERY
03/14/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/20/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/20/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/23/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/23/07 (S) Moved CSSB 78(JUD) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/07 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/25/07 (S) DP: FRENCH
04/25/07 (S) NR: WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
05/03/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/07 (S) VERSION: CSSB 78(JUD)
05/04/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/07 (H) TRA, JUD
03/06/08 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 372
SHORT TITLE: HIGHWAY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY/MUNICIPALITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUCH
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) TRA, FIN
03/06/08 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 283
SHORT TITLE: PURPLE HEART TRAIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARDNER, LYNN
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) TRA, FIN
02/08/08 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/08/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/08 (H) TRA, FIN
03/06/08 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of SB 78.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 78.
MATT BLOODGOOD, Sergeant
Traffic Unit
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding tinted
windows during hearing on SB 78.
ANDREW FELT, Employee
Auto Trim Design
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that SB 78, as currently written,
would put his employer out of the window tinting business.
BOB BOSWOOD, Owner
Auto Trim Design
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that passage of SB 78 would
eliminate two full-time positions in his business.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 372.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified the Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities is mostly comfortable with HB 372, but still
has several concerns.
FRANK MCQUEARY, President
Anchorage Road Coalition
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 372, testified about
the benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS).
JIM ISTURIS, Staff
to Representative Berta Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Berta
Gardner, co-prime sponsor of SSHB 283.
RON SIEBELS
Military Order Of The Purple Heart
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 283.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KYLE JOHANSEN called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05:46 PM. Representatives
Johansen, Neuman, Keller and Doogan were present at the call to
order.
SB 78-MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING
1:06:15 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 78(JUD) "An Act relating to the
installation of window tinting in automobiles."
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB
78, testified there are three reasons why he believes this bill
is necessary. First is for driver safety. Windows too darkly
tinted can throw off a driver's depth perception, making the
driver unsafe. Second is pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Windows tinted too darkly make it impossible for a pedestrian or
bicyclist to make eye contact with the driver and can lead to
accidents. Third, and perhaps most important, is for officer
safety. Windows too darkly tinted do not allow public safety
officers to see inside the car when approaching it for a traffic
stop, and what is inside that car can mean life or death to the
officers.
SENATOR FRENCH pointed out that it is currently against Alaska
law for a driver to operate a vehicle on the road with windows
that are too darkly tinted. However, it is not illegal for
someone to install that tint that is too dark. He presumed the
committee will hear from individuals who do this for a living.
He said it is his belief that their complaint is, in essence,
with the state law. That is, these individuals would like the
law to be repealed and to have much looser regulations and
statutes with respect to the amount of tint on a window. In any
event, whatever level the committee eventually chooses for the
level of tint, the installers should be required to comply with
it, and that is what this bill asks them to do. It is the
installers who are in the best position to apply the correct
level of tint, thus protecting the consumer and the other public
policy interests mentioned earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired how this will be addressed for
vehicles brought to Alaska with window tinting from less
restrictive states, as often happens with members of the
military.
SENATOR FRENCH responded the bill is aimed at those businesses
that install window tint for a living. He said he is not taking
aim at the military members coming to Alaska. Nevertheless,
when someone moves to Alaska, he or she becomes subject to
Alaska's laws. The idea is not to burden military members or
other people moving to Alaska. The law with respect to window
tinting is a "fix-it ticket", he explained, which means the
ticket goes away if the window tinting is removed. So, there is
a mechanism in place to handle individual citizens. Senator
French said he thinks businesses should follow the law like
everyone else and not be allowed to harm a consumer by
installing tint that is too dark and which will then leave the
cost of removal on the consumer.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the bill includes a
transition time for members of the military coming to Alaska,
such as not needing to have the tint removed for members who
will be in the state for a short period of time.
SENATOR FRENCH replied no, the bill applies to professional
window tint installers. State law enforcement officers could
address the reasonable application of traffic laws on citizens.
CHAIR JOHANSEN understood the bill would apply to professional
tint installers holding a business license. He presumed it
would be up to law enforcement agencies to get any members of
the public who installed the tint by themselves.
SENATOR FRENCH answered someone gets caught when he or she is
out on the road, at which time a fix-it ticket would be issued
requiring the tint be peeled back to state law specifications.
In the course of giving a ticket and conversing with the driver,
an officer often finds out which shop installed the tint. This
bill would allow the officer to make a visit to that shop and
issue a citation if the installer does not cease installing tint
that is too dark. Failure to do that would result in a
citation, not jail.
CHAIR JOHANSEN inquired whether the bill would extend to stores
that sell [do-it-yourself] tinting kits.
SENATOR FRENCH responded he did think about going wider, but he
thought this is the most efficient application of the law and
the most efficient use of officers' time. There are shops that
do a large volume of business installing tint for a living, and
it seemed that asking those individuals to comply with state law
like everybody else was the most logical place. Possession of
window tint is not likely to become a crime under state law, he
said.
CHAIR JOHANSEN surmised the impetus behind the bill is that this
is not being enforced or it is a challenge for law officials to
enforce it on individual automobiles.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that 1,200 tickets were issued in
Anchorage in 2006. Having the ability to go to the individuals
installing the majority of those too-dark window tints would be
the more efficient.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained the bill reads like it would
apply to anybody that installs tint, not just a business.
SENATOR FRENCH answered the bill would apply to a person caught
in the act in the garage. However, he said, he believes the
likelihood of that crime coming to the attention of police is
almost vanishingly small. What can be found out by issuing
tickets to drivers and checking the yellow pages is who installs
tint for a living. This law was requested through a community
council meeting at which citizens stated they felt unsafe
because cars with illegally dark windows were driving around
their neighborhood. The citizens questioned why it is legal to
install tint that is darker than state law allows and asked him
if something could be done, he reported.
CHAIR JOHANSEN inquired whether someone could be compelled to
say where his or her tinting was done.
SENATOR FRENCH responded everyone has the Fifth Amendment right
not to answer.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that the rub with him is the
unaware individual who becomes a criminal by committing the
"crime of improper installation" of window tinting. He asked
what the penalty is for this.
SENATOR FRENCH replied it is meant to be a violation and the
maximum penalty is a $300 fine. No one will go to jail for
window tinting.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether a fix-it ticket will
generally be given rather than a fine.
SENATOR FRENCH explained the fix-it ticket is for the driver on
the street operating a vehicle with windows too darkly tinted.
Installing the tint is another thing and the fix-it ticket would
not apply.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how many companies are doing this.
SENATOR FRENCH answered there are at least two companies in
Fairbanks and he thinks there are also companies in Anchorage.
In further response to Representative Neuman, Senator French
said he would get back to the committee on the number of
companies in the state that do tinting.
CHAIR JOHANSEN commented that probably any body shop in
Ketchikan would install window tint.
SENATOR FRENCH guessed a lot of detailers also do it, however
there are a few shops that specialize in it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER contended that on the scale of things that
can be made illegal, he is wondering why this one. Does a
trooper carry equipment that tests the window tinting, he asked.
SENATOR FRENCH responded there is a tintometer. He acknowledged
this is not the most serious bill that will ever be taken up,
but pedestrians get hit, bicycles get run over, and a police
officer was shot in the chest with an assault rifle from behind
a window tinted so dark the officer could not see it coming.
From time to time something horrible happens on the road due to
windows that are too darkly tinted.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether a public safety vehicle
with tinted windows would be immune from this.
SENATOR FRENCH replied he does not know and thinks there is an
exception in regulation, not statute. He deferred to the law
officers.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety,
presented a PowerPoint review of state and federal laws
regarding window tint. He said under Alaska law: a front
windshield may have a five-inch strip of tint, and this
"eyebrow" has no restrictions as long as it is not mirrored; the
front driver and passenger side windows must allow 70 percent
Visible Light Transmission (VLT); all other rear windows must
allow 40 percent VLT, with exemptions for buses, limousines,
multi-purpose vehicles, and medical needs. He said he thinks
this provision is what would exempt the special-use police
vehicles. He noted that in his 18 years as a trooper he has
never seen a law enforcement car that has had after-market
window tinting applied to it.
LIEUTENANT DIAL explained that federal law primarily sets the
standard for vehicle manufacturers. States are allowed to set
their own standards, and most state standards are pretty close
to the federal standards. Federal law specifies a minimum of 70
percent VLT for the windshield and the driver's and passenger's
side windows, but it does not specify any tinting requirements
for any other windows. Although laws change constantly and vary
among counties and cities, at least 13 other states have similar
or more restrictive law than Alaska, about 90 percent of the
Canadian provinces have a similar or more restrictive law.
About five states allow 50 percent tint on the front side
windows, and about 31 states range from about 20 percent to 40
percent VLT for the [front] side windows. Generally, he said,
the hotter the climate, the greater the window tint allowed.
LIEUTENANT DIAL noted that driving with tinted windows at night
is essentially the same as driving with sunglasses on. General
purpose sunglasses range from about 15 percent to 40 percent
VLT. There are some would like Alaska's tinted window law to
allow tints that only allow 30 percent VLT, he related. Under
Alaska law tinting material for cars must be either green, grey,
bronze, or smoke, and cannot be reflective or mirrored.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked why mirrored is not allowed.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered he does not know, but he guesses it is
because of the distraction that could be posed to other drivers
on a sunny day.
LIEUTENANT DIAL addressed the question of, Do tinted windows
really cause problems? He recounted the story of a police
officer shot by a murder suspect inside a car with tinted
windows who the officer was unable to see. Allowing increased
tint in Alaska would prevent officers from having the ability to
defend themselves initially from someone inside the car
presenting a danger. He related an example in Chicago where
police officers unable to see clearly through a tinted window
mistakenly shot a passenger they thought had a gun, but it was a
cell phone. Even moderate tint makes it extremely difficult to
see into cars in low light conditions, he explained.
1:28:58 PM
LIEUTENANT DIAL said there are numerous examples of criminals
who were not identified because witnesses could not see the
driver through tinted windows. Additionally, collisions with
motor vehicles and pedestrians have been blamed on poor
visibility due to tinted windows. He cited other examples of
problems: tinted windows can hamper police in determining
whether a vehicle's occupants are wearing seat belts, have their
children properly protected in car seats, or are drinking out of
an open container; heavy tints may also prevent other motorists
from viewing the road ahead by looking through the cabins of
cars in front of them, something many drivers do especially when
roads are congested; and tinted windows can impair a driver's
vision, particularly at night, making it difficult to see
pedestrians and bicyclists.
LIEUTENANT DIAL used a photo comparison of a Nissan Maxima with
three different percentages of window tint to show how on a
sunny day the interior of a car is obscured even with legal tint
of 70 percent VLT. Regarding the car depicted with 30 percent
VLT, he noted it is extremely difficult to see dark objects such
as guns or to see what the driver is doing. He directed
attention to the car with a 5 percent VLT, which is a limousine
tint, and into which it was impossible to see anything even on a
sunny day. He presented two real life photos of cars with
tinted windows in Ketchikan and an industry photo of tinting.
1:32:23 PM
LIEUTENANT DIAL stated there are reasons not to change the
current law in Alaska: the state's current standards assure
that Alaskan vehicles are in compliance with the tinted window
laws in most states and Canadian provinces; the law allows for
increased visibility for the driver, especially important during
times when there is not a lot of sun; the law provides increased
safety for pedestrians; and the law provides increased safety
for law enforcement officers.
LIEUTENANT DIAL testified that [the Department of Public Safety]
supports SB 78 because: it protects the public from unethical
installers who would tint a vehicle knowing that the
installation is illegal; it will reduce the number of citations
issued to motorists; and it will increase safety on Alaska's
highways. He informed the committee that most new cars come
from the factory with close to the legal amount of tint on the
windows already. The bill would give the consumer legal
recourse for being sold illegal tinting and the consumer could
request the state troopers to issue a citation to the installer.
Thus, SB 78 is a positive thing overall for the public.
LIEUTENANT DIAL noted that many window tint citations result
from making a contact or traffic stop for another reason, as
too-dark window tinting itself is a low priority in most cases.
When traffic stops are made on individuals who are known "bad
guys", a ticket will be written for window tinting because
troopers do not want these people to have tinted windows the
next time they are stopped.
1:36:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether window tinting is used as
a primary offense for stopping a vehicle.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded it can be a primary offense. A heavy
tint is obvious and easily identified. However, in his
experience with the officers he supervises, it does not happen
very often because no officer wants to make a bad stop when the
tinting is marginal and have egg on his or her face if the
tinting passes muster. He said it tends to happen when the
vehicle is stopped for some other reason such as suspicion of
committing a crime or some other traffic offense.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether rear window screens would be
included on trucks.
LIEUTENANT DIAL replied no. Trucks are considered multi-purpose
vehicles and, technically, a pickup truck could have limousine
tint on the back piece of glass. He explained that tint meters
only work on windows that can be rolled down. Tint material on
windshields is pretty much illegal anywhere in the country, he
said. Therefore, troopers really only focus on the driver's and
passenger's side windows.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised it is only windshields and the
front door windows that are being talked about.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered yes. In response to further questions
from Representative Neuman, Lieutenant Dial stated a limousine
is a special-use vehicle that is exempt from the requirements
for the majority of the windows. He confirmed this would affect
primarily passenger cars. However, he noted, special-use
vehicles like limousines, as well as pickup trucks, still have
to have the windshield at the federally mandated standard and
also the front driver and passenger side windows.
1:39:51 PM
MATT BLOODGOOD, Sergeant, Traffic Unit, Anchorage Police
Department, related that during his years of patrol work he
would run the tintometer out of curiosity on the vehicles he
drove. Generally, he found the driver's side windows to be
around 71-72 percent window tint from the factory. So, he said,
anything that gets added to the driver's side windows pretty
much makes it illegal almost immediately.
SERGEANT BLOODGOOD stated it is difficult at night to see into
vehicles that have tinted windows. Oftentimes when officers
make a traffic stop, an attempt is made to put light into the
vehicle to determine what the occupants are doing, such as
hiding drugs or having a weapon. However, the light cannot
penetrate window tint which creates flashback and makes it very
difficult to see into the vehicle. He said that in a number of
the hit-and-run cases he has handled, criminal investigation was
hampered because the victims were unable to make any sort of
identification on the driver due to window tinting and could not
even tell if the driver was male or female. In January and
February of this year, the 10 officers working in his traffic
unit issued 119 citations for window tint.
SERGEANT BLOODGOOD addressed the earlier reference regarding
police undercover vehicles. For the Anchorage Police
Department, he said, there are some exceptions written into
municipal ordinance to allow police vehicles to vary from some
of the traffic ordinances based on the needs of the department
and the mission of public safety.
ANDREW FELT, Employee, Auto Trim Design, said SB 78, as written,
does not address the problem. If businesses were subject to
fines as written in this bill, Auto Trim Design would have been
put out of the business of doing window tint. "The law is very
arcane as the way it was adopted," he said. For instance, a
Subaru Forester is considered a sport utility vehicle (SUV) and
it is permissible to darken the back windows. However, a Subaru
Outback station wagon, which does not appear to be much
different, falls under the category of a passenger car and would
not be allowed to have the same level of window tint.
MR. FELT said that with the large number of transient military
members a lot of vehicles come in from the many states that have
much more lenient laws for window tint. Unless there is a 100
percent crackdown on all this window tint coming in from out-of-
state, there will always be vehicles on the road with tinted
windows. Other people will see this and want the product for
its benefits, but there will be no place they can go to get it
or to be educated as to what the law is regarding window film.
There are many places online where pre-cut window tint kits can
be purchased. These mail order kits are fairly easy for a
backyard installer to put on and could not be regulated. This
bill would only serve to put the people in the business of
window tint out of it, Mr. Felt contended, and would leave the
public without any place to turn for something even within the
law.
1:46:37 PM
MR. FELT, in response to Representative Neuman, said his
understanding is that the regulation would apply to any window
in any passenger vehicle; thus, it would also include the back
window of a sedan.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN inquired why the bill would put Mr. Felt
out of business.
MR. FELT responded that current law does not say his business
cannot do this; it says that the owner of the vehicle is subject
to the law once that vehicle hits the road with the tint. This
would put his company out of the window tint business because
there would be no need to employ a person to do the window tint.
He said he has done window tint for over twenty years in five
different states, and Alaska is by far the most restrictive.
Every day customers with brand new SUV's come to Auto Trim
Design asking that the front windows be darkened as much as are
the back windows from the factory. He said his shop tells these
customers it will not do that, but that it will apply a light
tint which, he acknowledged, does fall outside of Alaska's
regulations. However, he contended, that tint is light enough
to easily see into that vehicle. The law does not define darker
tint as any more illegal than a very light tint, so in many
people's minds the question is, Why bother paying someone to do
it light when it can be done very dark somewhere else?
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked why passing a law that restricts Mr.
Felt's business from installing window tinting which is already
illegal on the road will put him out of business.
1:50:40 PM
MR. FELT replied because his employer would choose not to be in
violation of a law that specifically targets the businesses that
are doing window tinting. He said he can tint a vehicle legally
if it is an SUV, but that percentage of his business is not very
large. Most people want their entire vehicle done. His
business would not be able to do the back windows of a Camry for
the soccer mom who wants to keep her kids in the back seat cool
and safe from ultra-violate rays. He said his business informs
its customers that this is technically out of specification with
Alaska state regulations and that they could be ticketed for it.
Currently, Auto Trim Design is not violating the law by
installing the window tint; the purchaser of that product is and
most customers choose to accept that, given the benefits of the
product. Only seven other states have laws close to or as
restrictive as Alaska's, he related.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN understood Mr. Felt to be saying that if
his business only installs window tinting that is legal in
Alaska he would not have enough customers to make it worthwhile
to continue the business.
MR. FELT answered yes, this would be the case if film can only
be applied to those vehicles that come under the legal allowable
limit which includes pickup trucks, SUVs, mini-vans, and full-
size vans. Federal regulations go back many years before there
were such things as Ford Explorers and Dodge Magnums which do
not fall under the classification of a passenger vehicle.
1:54:04 PM
BOB BOSWOOD, Owner, Auto Trim Design, stated he has been tinting
windows in Alaska longer than [Lieutenant] Dial has been a
trooper. Window film makes a vehicle look nice, cuts down on
"UV", and reduces glare. At certain times of the year in
Fairbanks the sun is on the horizon for quite some time and it
nice to have the glare reduction. He agreed with [Sergeant
Bloodgood's] statement that some factory tinted windows are
already at the limit.
MR. BOSWOOD said a bill should accomplish something and the only
accomplishment this bill will have is to restrict. His business
will not tint windows too dark for police to see in, he stated.
The medium 35 percent tint that is done by his business is
outside the regulations. If the legislature makes it illegal
for his business to do this, his business will comply with the
law which will eliminate two full-time positions as well as
several other services that those employees do seasonally.
MR. BOSWOOD warned that if his business is not here to do the
medium tint on those windows, those very same windows will be
tinted by someone's buddy on the military base or in a backyard
or garage for cash only, and there will be no proof as to who
tinted those windows. Additionally, those windows will be 5
percent tint and darker, as opposed to the 35 percent that his
business currently does on front doors. He said he understands
the trooper's side of it, but that most of today's SUVs and
pickup trucks have dark tint that cannot be seen through and it
is legal under federal standards.
1:57:16 PM
SENATOR FRENCH drew attention to a letter of support from the
Chief of Police of the Fairbanks Police Department. He read
aloud the last paragraph from the letter:
Regardless of whether or not a business owner
personally agrees with the current tint requirements
they all know what the current law is. For them to
consciously disregard that law and install a window
tint which they know to be illegal and passing on the
subsequent cost for both the violation and tint
removal to their often ignorant and unsuspecting
customers is wrong and should not be allowed to
continue.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thinks the testimony today points out why
it is a good idea to put some onus on the tint installers - they
know the regulations better than anyone else. So, it seems like
a perfectly targeted bill to put installers in control of their
own fate and let them install legal tint on the cars that can
accept it and not install it where it is not allowed.
1:58:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated he is trying to find some middle
ground. He inquired whether Senator French has talked to the
various parties to try to find a common-ground solution. He
further inquired whether allowing another 5 percent tint, going
from a 30 percent tint to 35 percent, would be acceptable.
SENATOR FRENCH responded he would not be in favor of making
Alaska's laws more lax. There are a dozen or more other states
with rules similar to Alaska and they get along just fine. The
solution to the long sunny days in Fairbanks is a pair of
sunglasses that can be taken off when the sun goes down, or
shades that can be pulled down to protect kids when the sun is
shining. He said the idea of changing the law to make the
illegal installation of tint acceptable strikes him as being a
step backwards.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked which windows would be affected by
the bill.
SENATOR FRENCH replied the bill would apply to all windows on
the car, as provided on page 1, lines 7-9. He said a delayed
effective date could be put on the bill to let companies use up
the stock they have on hand and continue putting illegal product
on the street and continue the citation of unsuspecting
consumers. A delayed effective date would give the businesses
some time to adjust.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN understood that Lieutenant Dial said it
was just the front window and side windows.
SENATOR FRENCH understood that the rules apply all the way
around the car.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether this means there cannot
be more than 30 percent tint on any window.
SENATOR FRENCH said that particular statute belongs to the
windshield and the two side windows. Also the tint cannot go
beyond a certain level on the back passenger windows or the rear
window. There are two separate rules for the front and the
back. In further response, Senator French said there are two
sets of rules - one for passenger cars and one for everything
else, such as SUVs, limousines, and so forth.
SENATOR FRENCH, in response to Chair Johansen, confirmed the
bill next goes to the House Judiciary Standing Committee and
there are no further committee referrals.
2:03:46 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked whether the different levels of tint are
statutory or regulatory.
SENATOR FRENCH answered regulatory.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether out-of-state vehicles
coming into Alaska from states where more tint is legal would
receive a citation.
SENATOR FRENCH responded technically yes. He deferred to law
enforcement to say what the practice is on the street.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN understood that the committee does not
have the window tinting law in front of it. What the committee
has is a proposed law that would prevent installers from
exceeding the current standards in Alaska.
SENATOR FRENCH replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN stated the people arguing against SB 78
are essentially saying that they want to be exempt from helping
people break Alaska law because they want to be able to put tint
on cars that does not meet these standards and be held harmless
for this action, which is the current status of the law.
SENATOR FRENCH answered that is the argument he heard being
made.
CHAIR JOHANSEN closed public testimony.
2:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN supported the intent of the legislation,
but said he is trying to find some middle ground.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN stated he is perfectly fine with moving
this bill.
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he understands the questions by the window
tinters, but that is not what is being addressed, as was made
clear by Representative Doogan. He stated the questions can be
worked out through the regulatory process and suggested the
installers contact the appropriate state agency regarding
changing the regulations for the percentage of tinting.
REPRESENTATIVE Neuman moved to report CSSB 78(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 78(JUD) was
reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
HB 372-HIGHWAY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY/MUNICIPALITIES
2:11:40 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 372 "An Act relating to highway design
flexibility and to the assumption by municipalities of certain
duties related to highways."
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, Alaska State Legislature, noted that HB
372 is the result of many conversations with his constituents
about the roads in District 27, which includes the Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport. The bill would require the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to
implement Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) when designing and
reconfiguring roads. He explained that CSS is the process that
expands community involvement and brings in experts with
different perspectives when a road is being designed or
redesigned. This process is being used to improve roads all
over the U.S. with great success, he said, and because of its
success, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) listed
adoption of CSS in all 50 states by 2007 as one of its strategic
goals. Context Sensitive Solutions would be a great system to
improve Alaska's roads. He said there is a proposed committee
substitute (CS) that is the result of a three-hour meeting
yesterday between his staff, DOT&PF, and Frank McQueary of the
Anchorage Road Coalition.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved that the committee adopt as its
working document the proposed CS of HB 372, labeled 25-LSO525\K,
Kane, 3/6/08 (Version K). There being no objection, Version K
was adopted as the working document.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
stated that yesterday's three-hour meeting included discussions
of the bill, examples of good and bad projects, and the things
that could have been done better in the past. He said DOT&PF
has a CSS policy that was adopted and is in use, and several
projects that went through the CSS process have been built,
including the new Elmore Road and the C Street extension. The
proposed Bragaw Interchange at the Glenn Highway also went
through the CSS process. Context Sensitive Solutions relies
upon there being flexibility in design standards, explained Mr.
Ottesen. While not every project has taken advantage of that
flexibility, the department did adopt flexible design standards
10 years ago. Thus, CSS is not a new concept to the department,
nor is flexible design standards.
2:16:23 PM
MR. OTTESEN said the previous bill troubled the department
because it mixed design standards with design process and used
the two ideas interchangeably as if they were the same thing.
They are quite different in a legal sense, he stressed. He said
the department proposed that the section on standards be left
alone and that the focus be on design process. So, Section 1
now adds a new subsection to the statute about following a CSS
process and Section 2 speaks to the types of organizations that
would be considered to be invited to the table depending upon
the particulars of a project. Not every project is going to
follow CSS, only those projects that involve design, or new
construction, or some new change to the roadway. He said the
department is now much more comfortable with the bill, but it is
not yet 100 percent there. The bill is much better because it
got rid of the legal conundrum, but there are still a few tweaks
the department would like to work on with the sponsor. Time
restraints precluded a full review, he explained.
2:18:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested Mr. Ottesen to go through the
bill and tell the committee which areas it supports and which it
does not and why.
MR. OTTESEN responded the department's lack of support is not
having had the chance to fully vet the bill with some other
important people. The Department of Law (DOL), which defends
DOT&PF in tort and other claims, has not seen the CS. He noted
that DOT&PF submitted the long list of groups in Section 1(d).
However, the question is when would these groups be necessary
and could it create a legal challenge if every group is not
consulted by the department for every project. Right now the
department's process is in policy, he explained. When the
process is put into statute, it carries greater weight and it
creates a higher duty for the department and this is why there
needs to be vetting by the DOL.
2:20:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his opinion that DOT&PF could
address a lot of this through regulations. He referenced a
statement made by Mr. Ottesen at another hearing about the
department needing to start over whenever changes are made to a
federally funded project and how this adds costs. He requested
Mr. Ottesen to address this issue within the context of HB 372.
MR. OTTESEN replied an answer is hard because every project has
a specific set of facts. It could be argued that CSS will make
a project more successful because it brings all interests to the
table and tries to satisfy as many points of view as possible.
This is not to say that CSS will satisfy every point of view
since some points of view will be tugging in different
directions and the department must somehow find the common
ground. For example, truckers may want wider lanes for a larger
radius around corners, but pedestrians may want narrower lanes
and a smaller radius at corners. The department must show that
it went through the process as fairly as possible. He said he
thinks CSS is a good process, but that the department does not
want it to be used as a way to stall projects because it becomes
something that can be litigated.
2:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that DOT&PF already does everything
it can to accommodate CSS in the best way possible through its
extensive public process. Yet, the number of lawsuits against
projects has increased and the delays have substantially
increased the costs of construction. He inquired whether HB 372
would bring about more lawsuits against the department.
MR. OTTESEN answered DOT&PF has not yet had a chance to ask the
Department of Law for its opinion as to whether there is fuzzy
language in the bill. It is fuzzy language that often leads to
debates in front of a judge, he noted. While DOT&PF has a CSS
policy and is implementing it, the department is not 100 percent
there because it takes time and training for CSS to get
inoculated into the brain of every design engineer so that each
engineer knows he or she has the latitude to use CSS. Trainers
have been brought in twice and the department is training CSS
trainers within its ranks. One irony, he related, is that
several of the examples raised in the discussion with Mr.
McQueary would have been made better by CSS, but they were not
DOT&PF projects and HB 372 would only apply to DOT&PF projects.
2:26:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether use of the word "shall"
[page 2, line 9] locks DOT&PF into having to consult all of the
agencies that are listed on [page 2, lines 12-26].
MR. OTTESEN replied the department had a long philosophical
conversation with Mr. McQueary about whether this was necessary
since DOT&PF has already adopted this policy and is rapidly
trying to implement it. The feeling that was heard, he related,
is that it is important to cement this into law so that a change
in DOT&PF leadership over time could not just wash it away.
However, in his experience these things become standard practice
and do not tend to go away - more processes tend to be added
over time rather than taken away.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked whether DOT&PF is currently
prevented from doing anything that is in HB 372.
MR. OTTESEN answered no. The vast majority of this is being
done now and that is why the department is at the 80 percent
comfort level.
2:29:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN inquired whether Arctic Boulevard [in
Anchorage] is an example that was not a DOT&PF project.
MR. OTTESEN responded he does not know the details of the Arctic
Boulevard project, but he knows it was controversial.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN remarked that if there is anything in HB
372 that would prevent a recurrence of the Arctic Boulevard
controversy, then he will support this bill. He said he
recognizes that CSS is a good thing, but he does not want to
open up any more avenues for delay than what there already are.
Would HB 372 open up more avenues, he asked.
MR. OTTESEN replied he cannot say absolutely without talking to
the Department of Law. He pointed out the language on page 2,
lines 10-11, which states, "When appropriate for a particular
project, the commissioner shall consult with...." Thus, he
explained, there is a judgment about what is "appropriate" on a
particular project and if the department chooses not to go to
all 11 groups on every project, it could be challenged on that
simple fact alone.
2:30:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN surmised Mr. Ottesen's concern is that
someone will contest the department's interpretation of
"appropriate".
MR. OTTESEN answered, "Precisely." That is a judgment that is
being made and judgments are often open to multiple
interpretations.
2:31:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired whether Mr. Ottesen thinks delays
could be reduced if the spirit of HB 372 is followed through the
early and effective involvement of the groups.
MR. OTTESEN responded that is precisely the successes that
people point to when they talk about CSS. Bringing all of the
various interest groups to the table at the same time allows
everyone to hear the concerns of the others in order to come up
with alternatives that are suitable to all.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that some intent language in the
bill might be appropriate.
MR. OTTESEN stated he did not have an opportunity to speak with
Representative Buch about the department's remaining concerns
prior to this committee meeting because of the floor session.
2:34:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked how long Mr. Ottesen thought it
would take to get the department's concerns checked out.
MR. OTTESEN replied 24 hours.
CHAIR JOHANSEN inquired whether the department currently has a
specific list of groups that it contacts for proposed projects.
MR. OTTESEN answered the project manager or the project engineer
typically learns what the issues are from scoping meetings that
are held in various communities. He cited the new Bragaw
Interchange across the Glenn Highway in Anchorage as an example
of this.
CHAIR JOHANSEN surmised Mr. Ottesen's concern is that the
flexibility the department now has for inviting groups to the
table will be eliminated if the eleven groups are codified.
MR. OTTESEN responded he would like to make sure it is the right
11 groups, maybe it should be 13. For instance, transit
organizations were only added to the list yesterday. He said he
would like to find a way to say that the department has talked
to these groups without making it a "gotcha" if the right group
is accidently not invited.
CHAIR JOHANSEN stated that is his point. Having a codified list
could result in needing to come back to the legislature
periodically to add to the list of groups. The concept of
having the various entities at the table gives them ownership of
the process and ultimately reduces the problems of litigation.
He presumed Mr. Ottesen is looking for a way to make the
rigidity in the bill more flexible.
MR. OTTESEN replied yes, flexible in both directions because
maybe the department will invite groups that were not thought of
during the previous three-hour work session.
2:38:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN agreed it is a lot better to fight
skirmishes when they are small and at the front of the project
rather than to fight them in court when trying to pour the
concrete. He said he shares Chair Johansen's concern about
having to periodically add groups to the list. As opposed to a
list, he asked, was there any consideration given to just
writing more general language that would allow DOT&PF to include
the appropriate groups or individuals in the process.
MR. OTTESEN answered there was a list in the previous version of
HB 372 and the department added 3 or 4 categories to it. There
was not enough time to think about that, he said, and this is
the one section that troubles him. It is an evolving world and
the groups that can be thought of today will not be the groups
that are thought of five or fifteen years from now.
2:40:06 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced he will hold HB 372 in order to allow
the sponsor and DOT&PF to fix the last 20 percent of the bill.
2:40:39 PM
FRANK MCQUEARY, President, Anchorage Road Coalition, noted the
Anchorage Road Coalition is a non-profit group comprised of
members of the Anchorage community. He said the coalition's
main function is education and advocating for the implementation
of CSS. He informed the committee that Anchorage Metropolitan
Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) adopted the CSS policy and
is now going through the public process to make it a statutory
municipal policy. The concept of CSS is to involve all of the
stakeholders in a community early and frequently in the process
in order to eliminate many problems. It was started in 2000 at
an American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) conference. A pilot project was started in
five states to try to understand how something could be
implemented that would improve processes, create greater
satisfaction with projects, eliminate controversy and problems,
and speed up the process. The conference title, "Thinking
Beyond the Pavement," was the professional body's recognition
that transportation actions have tremendous impact on lots of
things besides just automobiles and moving traffic.
2:43:53 PM
MR. MCQUEARY related that [AASHTO's] web page describes CSS as a
collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all
stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its
physical setting, preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and
environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility.
Alaska is unusual in that it was not the engineering profession
itself that introduced this initiative, although the committee
is being told that DOT&PF practices it. Mr. McQueary
acknowledged that DOT&PF does practice some parts of CSS. He
said the coalition is pushing for statutory implementation of
CSS because, as seen from other parts of the country, CSS is
most successful when implemented by statute. It has been
implemented by statute in about half of the states where it is
in practice. He stated good design takes time and bad design
takes longer because if it is bad design there will be
controversy and legal delays.
2:46:05 PM
MR. MCQUEARY stated that a number of state, municipal, and
private engineers have offered encouragement to the Anchorage
Road Coalition, but they have not wanted to be leaders in this
because of resistance at state and municipal levels. He said 14
states had implemented CSS statutorily by 2003, and he believes
it had grown to about 28 states two years ago. It is a
strategic goal of the Federal Highway Administration to have a
50-state adoption of this policy, he related. It is nice to say
it is already being done, but if it is not a written policy it
is subject to the vagaries of who is in office at any particular
time. One real objective of [CSS] is to avoid the re-work cycle
and the associated costs of doing something twice.
2:48:55 PM
MR. MCQUEARY stated that the statutory language in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) basically says stakeholders will
be included early in the process. It is in the best interests
of DOT&PF to recognize who the vested interests are - who will
be damaged, who is going to benefit, and what the costs are.
Improper pre-design analysis is the cause of much controversy
and many delays. He said the language in SAFETEA-LU for
inclusion of groups states "including but not limited to". He
acknowledged there are notable instances where DOT&PF is trying
to implement CSS. However, CSS is about much more than the
public process, he said. The public is only one stakeholder.
There is an economic impact, up or down, on property values. A
freeway has one overriding purpose and that is maximum mobility.
In urban areas there are conflicts because more is trying to be
done than just maximum mobility and this is where CSS came from
in the Lower 48. The CSS process is already developed and not
something new, so the expertise and resources are already
available for implementing it in Alaska.
2:53:11 PM
MR. MCQUEARY noted that, according to statistical data,
environmental issues were not the majority cause for project
delays. The top causes for delay were lack of funding,
controversy, or a low priority within the transportation
departments themselves. The track record shows that states with
CSS have more projects built quicker with less controversy.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER thanked Mr. McQueary for testifying and
said he really likes the concept and hopes the wording can be
worked out.
MR. MCQUEARY said that, based on the experience of the other
states, implementation of CSS would improve the process and
would lower or have no impact on the legal risks of the
transportation department. The FHWA has published a manual
entitled, "Flexibility in Highway Design," which is specifically
intended to educate the profession to how much latitude it has
in using the "green book" as a starting point. He agreed with
Mr. Ottesen that a lot of the engineers in DOT&PF are not there
yet.
2:57:16 PM
MR. MCQUEARY noted the multi-disciplinary team that addresses a
lot of the issues going in actually prepares the engineers to
better defend the project downstream in a much less
controversial environment. If there is not a good process then
there will not be a good result. Alaska needs to extract the
most value out of every dollar that it can and the CSS process
will help do that. He said he is willing to engage in some
tweaking as long as it does not neutralize the value of the
policy. He cautioned that sometimes the search for perfection
is the enemy of progress.
2:59:20 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN reiterated he is holding HB 372 over so DOT&PF
and the sponsor can get together. He inquired about the
SAFETEA-LU language regarding organizations.
MR. MCQUEARY advised the language should recognize the
possibility that there could be other groups than those that are
listed and it should recognize the possibility that there will
be projects where some of the groups will not have any relevant
interest or input. Part of CSS is that transportation
departments pro-actively reach out and understand who the
stakeholders are and then bring them into the discussion.
Putting all of the stakeholders into a room provides a totally
different result than when each stakeholder is talked to
sequentially, as has been done in the past. The dynamic of
successful negotiation is to have everyone in the same room so
that everyone understands all of the issues and realizes that
the end product is going to be a compromise.
CHAIR JOHANSEN encouraged Mr. McQueary, the sponsor, and DOT&PF
to get together. He invited Mr. McQueary to be online during
the committee's discussion of the bill next week.
3:01:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH drew attention to page 2, line 10, of
Version K. He explained that this is discretionary language and
is inclusive language, not exclusive language. So, these are
listed recommendations of parties to include, it is not designed
to exclude. It is a starting point and is not meant to dictate
for every project. He said as the sponsor he is trying to get
projects started and completed in an efficient manner in an
effort of saving consumer and public funds.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether it is DOT&PF that decides
"When appropriate" as stated on page 2, line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH responded it is the commissioner who shall
deem when it is appropriate, and it does not exclude any group.
It is up to the commissioner to decide which groups are
pertinent. It is very discretionary language.
CHAIR JOHANSEN stated the committee will look at this section
next week.
[HB 372 was held over.]
HB 283-PURPLE HEART TRAIL
3:03:53 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced that the final order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 283 "An Act designating
the Alaska Highway and a portion of the Richardson Highway as
the Purple Heart Trail."
3:04:04 PM
JIM ISTURIS, Staff to Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska State
Legislature, testified that SSHB 283 would establish the Purple
Heart Trail. The Purple Heart is a medal that is awarded to
common soldiers who have been injured or have died while
fighting for America. The Purple Heart Trail is an effort to
remind the public of the soldiers who have fought and sacrificed
for America. The Purple Heart Trail started in Virginia and
currently crosses 43 states and Alaska will hopefully be the
th
44. There is a large military presence in Alaska and this
trail will serve as a reminder of Alaska's appreciation of the
service and sacrifice of military members.
CHAIR JOHANSEN stated his intention to hold SSHB 283 until next
week.
RON SIEBELS, Military Order Of The Purple Heart, stated he has
been working hard on this issue for over a year and is proud to
say there wide support across Alaska. Representative Gardner
and Senator Ellis helped get this issue before the legislature
and Governor Palin and other statewide veterans' organizations
support the bill, he related. The two major communities that
would be in the center of the trail, Tok and Delta Junction, are
in support of the bill. Also supporting the bill are the
Anchorage mayor, the Anchorage Assembly, and the three members
of Alaska's congressional delegation. He said he would like to
show that Alaska has a heart that matches its size when it comes
to honoring veterans, and passage of SSHB 283 would do exactly
that. Alaska will continually be visited by many travelers who
either know someone or are related to someone who was wounded or
killed in battle, and the Purple Heart Trail signs will create a
warm and positive impression on those visitors. The trail would
therefore provide a twofold gain by honoring wounded and killed
veterans and promoting a warm and visible welcome to the
visitors whose own lives have been affected by the Purple Heart
recipients they know and love. The Purple Heart Trail is a word
designation only, no highway names or numbers will change. He
said he passionately believes in America's Purple Heart Trail
and Alaska's officials will walk proudly into the future knowing
they helped to get this done. This bill for the Purple Heart
Trail is the right thing to do. On behalf of Alaska's combat-
wounded veterans, he asked for the committee's unanimous support
in passing SSHB 283.
3:08:04 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN stated that due to lack of time, SSHB 283 will be
held over and considered next week.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, for purposes of the record, asked Mr.
Siebels to state why this particular stretch of highway was
picked to be the Purple Heart Trail.
MR. SIEBELS said different roads were talked about, but it was
thought that this was probably the best one because of its
military history and the original Alaska-Canadian Highway in
World War II. This highway was chosen for its military
significance, the number of travelers coming into the state, and
because it is the only route into Alaska.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|