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 | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2014
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 371
"An Act providing for the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities to hold the surface estate of certain state
land; relating to the transfer of certain state land and
materials from the Department of Natural Resources to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the
construction or maintenance of the state highway system, state
airports, and state public buildings and facilities; relating to
the lease or sale of certain marine or harbor facilities;
relating to the lease or disposal by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities of rights-of-way, property
interests, or improvements that are no longer required; relating
to the grant of certain easements over submerged state land to
the federal government; relating to the transfer of certain
maintenance stations on the James Dalton Highway to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; relating to
the conveyance of land for right-of-way purposes from the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 371(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 371
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION BY REQUEST
03/10/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/14 (H) TRA, RES
03/11/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/14 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/18/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/14 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/20/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 378
SHORT TITLE: DRIVER LICENSING
SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION BY REQUEST
03/19/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/14 (H) TRA
03/20/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 371.
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief
Northern Region
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 371.
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 371.
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations
Central Office; Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 371.
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the House
Transportation Committee, Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair,
during the discussion of HB 378.
AMY ERICKSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 378.
DAN SMITH, Director
Anchorage Office
Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement (DMSCVE)
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 378.
JOANNE OLSEN, Division Operations Manager
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 378.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 378.
ANMEI GOLDSMITH, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 378.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 378.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:37 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Feige,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Isaacson, and P. Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Lynn and Gattis arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 371-STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
1:03:14 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 371, "An Act providing for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to hold the surface estate
of certain state land; relating to the transfer of certain state
land and materials from the Department of Natural Resources to
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the
construction or maintenance of the state highway system, state
airports, and state public buildings and facilities; relating to
the lease or sale of certain marine or harbor facilities;
relating to the lease or disposal by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities of rights-of-way, property
interests, or improvements that are no longer required; relating
to the grant of certain easements over submerged state land to
the federal government; relating to the transfer of certain
maintenance stations on the James Dalton Highway to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; relating to
the conveyance of land for right-of-way purposes from the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
[Version C adopted 3/18/14 was before the committee].
1:04:30 PM
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) summarized the bill. She reminded
members that the department has worked very closely with the DNR
on this bill and the bill has been refined as testimony was
given. The purpose of this bill is to clarify, streamline, and
remove duplicate processes in DOT&PF & DNR. The DOT&PF and the
DNR sometimes have duplicate authority - DOT&PF over
transportation facilities and DNR for vacant unappropriated
lands, as well as resource authority the DOT&PF doesn't have.
Therefore, the DOT&PF can do many of the same things, but what
has happened over time is that the DNR may not be aware of
actions the DOT&PF has taken or duplication in law has occurred.
MS. RICE said that bill works to remove the redundancy and
clarify the process, part of which is to streamline project
delivery and part of it as it relates to the public with respect
to land disposals. Once the DOT&PF is willing to give up a
small remnant or a road has been moved, the property owner must
go to both the DOT&PF and the DNR. For DNR, the land represents
a very small piece of land in comparison to other DNR land.
Property owners sometimes get lost in the process and are
harmed. Third, the DOT&PF would like to resolve bureaucracies
in terms of how the department manages transportation material
sites. The DOT&PF does not want to manage all the material
sites. She assured members that DNR will still have the ability
to give the public material out of the pits and manage them in
the same way, but the DNR will consult with DOT&PF on the ones
used for transportation purposes. She concluded that this is
the overview of HB 371.
1:07:12 PM
MS. RICE offered to cover the acquisition process to shorten
project delivery, Mr. Bennett will discuss improvements on the
land disposals and how to help neighboring properties, and Mr.
Lynch will discuss the material sites.
MS. RICE explained that some questions have arisen with respect
to property rights. She referred to flow chart in members'
packets [entitled "Typical DOT&PF Project Development Process"].
She recalled some comments that DOT&PF is project centric and
DNR is land centric, which is true; however, the projects are on
DNR's land and the DOT&PF builds access to the land. Further,
in managing lands DNR has typically been more focused on their
functions and often is less aware of the DOT&PF's process to get
a project delivered. The flow chart does not include how,
where, or why, but starts with project delivery. The orange
circles or clouds represent each time the DOT&PF formally
touches the public.
1:09:09
MS. RICE related the DOT&PF's informal process is ongoing.
Beginning with the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), all state or federally funded projects go through the
STIP process. Thus the STIP contains all projects regardless of
the funding type. This process requires an extensive public
process and once finalized a project undergoes an environmental
process. Most projects are federally funded so National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is mandated, but even
though state-funded projects don't require it, NEPA tends to
affect every project. For example, she referred to the Elmore
Road project in Anchorage. This project was a $40 million
totally state funded project with 1,000 feet of bridge
constructed - mostly for mitigation - over federally controlled
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit facilities.
However, the state performed a NEPA document parallel with the
design process. In fact, she has never observed a process that
did not require NEPA's involvement. The NEPA process could
range from a checklist to a full-blown formal Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), depending on the input received from all
of the agencies the DOT&PF contacts during the process. During
the NEPA process, engineers analyze alternatives that will
physically meet the purpose, including material source, consider
costs, and discuss the project with the regulators, including
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the DNR, and the USACE -
the bottom right shows the list of permitting and regulatory
agencies.
1:11:45 PM
MS. RICE explained that the type of public process becomes
apparent. For example, the DOT&PF uses a checklist when paving
a road whereas other projects can be very extensive. Once the
DOT&PF gets through the public process, the project goes to
final design. In a state-funded process the DOT&PF may perform
the design work using a parallel process. The federal agencies
can use each other's documents for making decisions. For
example, if the FHWA is in agreement with the USACE, the Corps
will use the federal document so the agency doesn't have to
recreate the document. The process can include historic
properties or any number of a long list of considerations.
Although the communities have been involved, at this point the
DOT&PF must get a local government concurrence and begins
mapping the rights-of-way and identifies the DNR land needed.
However, the DNR's analysis can hold up the process due to their
backlog. Thus, the DOT&PF can certify a project or wait for
another year or two for DNR's approval. One purpose of HB 371
is to allow DNR to honor the process and the DOT&PF's decision-
making process to transfer the land. She acknowledged that it
might sound like a "land grab" but actually the bill allows one
agency to use another state agency's process to transfer the
land without starting the process anew.
1:15:46 PM
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief, Northern Region, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained the DNR
has worked to adopt uniform language across the three
authorities of aviation, highways and public facilities. As
just discussed the DOT&PF and DNR have overlapping authorities
that sometimes results in an unsolvable problem. For example,
the DOT&PF holds a highway easement at Eureka Lodge on the Glenn
Highway easement and DNR owns the underlying fee estate. The
departments have identified the problem that an adjoining
property owner has encroached in the right-of-way with sewage
lagoons. One solution would be for the DOT&PF to vacate the
easement, but to do so would only pass the problem on to DNR.
The DNR was unable to resolve the matter with a preference right
sale. Thus, no solution was available under the current
statutory language and the property owner is basically "left out
in cold." This bill would solve this problem since DOT&PF would
be vested with the fee simple title for the surface estate in
the existing transportation facilities. With the uniform
language the DOT&PF could dispose of the fee simple title
interest to this property owner without needing to involve DNR.
This would protect the state's interest by ensuring the same
types of reservations, such as the mineral estate, are reserved
just as it would be under a DNR land disposal process.
1:18:17 PM
MR. BENNETT pointed out one other issue is the land disposal
language in AS 35 requires DOT&PF to dispose of any excess land
to the person the department had obtained the land from, but the
party may no longer be available. He questioned whether the
person would even have any interest in obtaining the property.
Yet another party may want the land, would really benefit from
the land, and is willing to pay the fair market value. However,
under the current statutes the state cannot sell to the
interested party. This bill would solve that problem, he said.
MR. BENNETT pointed out another scenario, in which the state may
not have acquired an entire property but just a thin strip for
road widening. If the road ends up being relocated, it makes
sense that the excess strip would go back to the original owner.
In fact, to do anything else would "land lock" the parcel. The
proposed language would solve these types of problems and make
the state's disposal process much more efficient.
1:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether he was speaking to
Sections 4 and 5, which relates to DNR. He suggested that this
might be a global application.
MR. BENNETT answered that the revisions would be to Sections 2,
4, and 10, which specifically addresses the disposal language
for airports, highways, and public facilities. While these
provisions address the DOT&PF's current statutes, Sections 1, 6,
and 9 that vests fee simple title for the existing facilities
will now allow DOT&PF to dispose of the excess lands without
involving the DNR. In response to a question, Mr. Bennett
clarified that Sections 2, 4, and 10 relate to DOT&PF's land
disposal for rights-of-way for airports, highways, and public
facilities.
MR. BENNETT, in response to a question, referred to Sections 1,
6, and 9 that clarify the overlapping authorities that DNR and
DOT&PF have on existing airport, highway, and public facility
properties. For example, the DOT&PF only has an easement
interest on the Glenn Highway so the aforementioned sections
would vest fee simple title to DOT&PF so it can manage the
disposal by itself.
CHAIR P. WILSON reiterated that these are very small parcels of
land and DNR has more important parcels to contend with so
delays often occur.
1:24:07 PM
MR. BENNETT agreed that this would speed up the process;
however, some projects exist in which the department hits a
roadblock and cannot accomplish under the existing language -
for example, the Eureka Lodge project. In response to a
comment, he agreed that the DOT&PF and the DNR cannot resolve
the issues with the Eureka Lodge under the current language.
1:24:50 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
Department of Law (DOL), reviewed Section 13, which relates to
DOT&PF's material sales contract exemption. He explained that
Section 13 is an amendment to DNR's Alaska Land Act. Currently,
AS 38.05.030 provides various exemptions to DNR's rules. For
example, the DOT&PF has a long list of exemptions, including the
railroad and the University of Alaska. This language creates a
new subsection [h] that would exempt the material sales
contracting requirements for DOT&PF's use of its pits. When
DOT&PF develops a road with cut-and-fill construction, sometimes
a deficit in the fill exists. The DOT&PF would open a material
site to obtain extra fill. When the project is finished the
material site contains the overburden and the site remains
available for later extraction of gravel, which are the material
sites under question. Under DNR's Alaska Lands Act authority,
the DNR can sell materials from state-owned material sites.
This specific rule applies to DOT&PF's sites since DOT's
material sites are state owned. He characterized it as
overlapping authority, but when DOT&PF enters into material
sites it must go to DNR to obtain a material sales contract.
Under the bill, Section 13 relieves DNR of the responsibility of
entering into contracts with DOT&PF.
1:27:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that the pits in
question are DOT&PF's pits.
MR. LYNCH answered that the DOT&PF's highway and airport pits
were opened by DOT&PF. In fact, DOT&PF carries the
environmental permits. When third party sales occur, the DNR
consults with DOT&PF on any intended sales and DOT&PF provides
the permittee with the environmental conditions necessary to use
DOT&PF's pits. He acknowledged that a private developer might
open a DOT&PF site for a subdivision. When finished, the DNR
would have another pit, but the vast majority of the pits are
DOT&PF's pits.
1:29:05 PM
MR. LYNCH pointed out that two main concerns have been raised.
First, Section 13 would give carte blanche authority to use any
state-owned pit. There are two reasons this is not the case.
First, this bill would amend the Alaska Land Act. Thus, this
bill provides an instruction to DNR that DOT&PF is exempt from
the contracting requirements under AS 38.05.550 - 38.05.565. A
list of pits open for material sales contracting is maintained
and this exemption would only apply to approximately 500 pits in
the state on the list. However, this bill does not amend
DOT&PF's statutes or give them any additional authority since
the bill would only provide DNR with an exemption from the
material sales contracts for DOT&PF's use of these pits. In
response to a comment, he agreed that this provision eliminates
DNR's role in the transaction.
1:30:50 PM
MR. LYNCH further explained that DOT&PF currently has the
authority over its rights-of-way and facilities. The bill would
remove one step in the overlapping authority between the two
departments, although DOT&PF would still act under its existing
authority.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that this could save time and money.
1:31:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that
Section 13 would only apply to the 500 pits associated with the
Alaska Lands Act.
MR. LYNCH read subsection (h), "Notwithstanding the provisions
in AS 38.05.550 - 38.05.56 ...." The DNR issues contracts for
the pits under the aforementioned statutes. Secondly, concern
was expressed that the DOT&PF would compete with the North Slope
oil and gas users. He responded that aside from the Dalton
Highway the DOT&PF doesn't have any reason or authority to go to
North Slope development areas to seek materials. Additionally,
the pits in question are the developers' pits and are not open
for third-party sales. So any North Slope pit that is open for
a specific DNR project is not one of the pits that DNR conducts
its third-party sales. This essentially relieves DNR the duty
to issue third party sales under its existing third party sales
contract provisions.
1:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS read an excerpt from Mr. Mylius's
letter dated March 12, 2014, which read, in part, "First, many
gravel pits on state land are developed by and the gravel sold
to private developers, municipalities, and other state agencies,
federal agencies or others." He asked whether that statement is
inaccurate if the 500 pits are DNR pits originally as provided
in statute.
MR. LYNCH answered no. Actually, DNR is authorized to sell
materials from DOT&PF's pits so DOT&PF uses and third-party
sales occur from these pits. He characterized them as shared
use permits. The DOT&PF and DNR both coordinate these sales so
problems have not arisen. He also recalled concern was
expressed about the depletion of pits, which thus far has not
been a problem. In fact, this bill wouldn't change the quantity
of materials. Finally, DNR's ability to waive contracting
requirements does not in any way cutoff third-party use of the
pits.
1:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that
Section 13 doesn't restrict DOT&PF so the department can take
whatever material they need from the pits since DNR will no
longer be the manager. He further understood this bill would
simplify the process. He asked what would protect the private
vendor or sale on pre-existing sales once DNR is no longer
involved.
MR. LYNCH answered that this coordination currently happens and
will continue to happen between the agencies. He said DNR and
DOT&PF coordinate this since the third parties will have
environmental conditions. For example, parties can't change the
water flow in the pit due to the Clean Water Act. The permit
outlines the conditions of use, such as identifying the area the
third party can use and the area the DOT&PF will use in the
shared usage. This effort will continue to happen. He
confirmed if there is a valid existing right or a future right
it would still fall under the same program.
1:36:53 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
explained that the pits being referred to are designated
material sites under AS 38.05.550. The current law says that
the state must designate a site in order to sell material from
the site to the public. Thus the department will go through a
public written decision identifying that the department will
sell materials for a certain number of years up to a certain
amount. Further, the decision outlines that the department will
conduct multiple material sale contracts at the site. The DNR
will issue material site contracts and does not need to public
notice each of the contracts. The contracts are issued to
anyone who asks for material so long as it is available.
MR. MENEFEE made a slight correction to Mr. Lynch's comments
since very few of the sites are sole-purpose sites and the DNR
sells to multiple individuals. Even on North Slope sites the
DNR sells to multiple people from the same pit. He acknowledged
that the DNR may have one operator who is the primary operator
responsible for permitting. He agreed with Mr. Lynch on the
coordination, such that if the DOT&PF is the pit operator anyone
else coming into the pit would be subservient to the permit
holder. This helps prevent violations on compliance with water
discharge, whether it is for DOT&PF, an oil and gas operator, or
anyone else who opened the pit. In response to a question, he
answered that the DNR has dual management authority on the pits.
Under the bill the DNR would not tell DOT&PF it needs a
contract, but the DNR would manage the pits and authorize use to
other entities. This management would be done under concurrence
of the DOT&PF. He highlighted that the bill puts DOT&PF in "top
dog" authority. If the DNR decides to issue another contract
the department would consult with DOT&PF for approval.
1:38:59 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that the biggest concern is
when people want to know if a third party has [a material site
contract] for a certain amount of material, whether the DOT&PF
can deny the material.
MR. MENEFEE answered that the DOT&PF would have the right to
take whatever quantity of material it needs, but he related his
understanding that if the DOT&PF wanted material it would need
to pay the third party. He suggested Mr. Lynch could describe
this in more detail. The existing contracts would not prevent
DOT&PF from taking all the material.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further clarification.
MR. LYNCH explained that take Article 1, Section XVI of Alaska's
Constitution provides a private property right so if there is a
contract for the material DOT&PF avoid taking it; however, if it
was a necessity the DOT&PF would reimburse the private
contractor.
1:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that Section 13
of HB 371 indicates DOT&PF would use the material for
construction and maintenance of facilities the DOT&PF is
constructing or operating. He asked, in DNR's experience, for
any other uses the materials would be sold for and to what types
of entities would buy them.
MR. MENEFEE answered that homeowners may want material for their
driveways, road, building construction, renewable energy or a
whole realm of construction projects. The DNR sells gravel,
sand, riprap used on habitat projects or boat launches. The
department also has hard rock that could be used for decorative
housing walls, and a whole slew of reasons exist why people buy
materials from state land.
1:43:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the North Slope Borough
might have competing claims for the land itself. He asked
whether specific language needed to be added.
MR. MENEFEE answered that this isn't just applicable to Section
13 but to any transfers to DOT&PF. He honed in on the question
the committee is getting to, which is that if the borough has
asked for municipal entitlement on the lands, and the DOT&PF
asked for land to be transferred - under Sections 3, 5, and 8 -
but the borough has selected the land for entitlement, the
entitlement would be subservient to DOT&PF's needs. For
example, if DOT&PF indicates it needs an airport and material
site, the DNR would likely deny the municipal entitlement at
this time. Conceivably, once the project was finished the
DOT&PF could give DNR the land, which could subsequently be
given to a municipality. However, it is likely the municipality
decided to select the land for revenue generation. He
acknowledged there is a tension and competition for the land and
this bill does put DOT&PF in first place. Thus, DNR would
adjust the municipal entitlement program to consider this aspect
as municipalities make land selections.
1:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related his understanding that the
DOT&PF's intent is for public need and necessity. He stated
that anything DOT&PF uses the land for would result in a public
benefit so the borough or other third party will also benefit.
MR. LYNCH, using the example of the material sites at Happy
Valley and Franklin Bluff, said that once DOT&PF receives sites
and develops the sites as DOT&PF's maintenance stations that it
will take an extra step from DNR to designate the sites as
available for material sales. He recalled a specific list of
sites where the public can receive materials. He suggested that
if DNR added those sites as designated sites, the municipality
could receive the materials along with any other third party.
To his knowledge the aforementioned material sites are not on
the designated material site lists.
1:47:59 PM
MR. MENEFEE said there is a difference between municipal
entitlements and individuals just receiving material through
material sale contracts. Municipal entitlements ask for full
fee simple interest in the land so there is competition in that
aspect. As Mr. Lynch described, which is also correct, if a
municipality or borough just needs material it could come to a
material site designation. Since the departments have joint
management authority under the bill, he asserted that DNR could
still designate a site per concurrence from the DOT&PF and could
sell material to the borough with concurrence of the DOT&PF. If
the DOT&PF didn't need all the material, the DNR could sell it
to the borough, just as it would for any other entity which has
happened in the past. Thus, there are two different aspects:
the municipal entitlement program and the material sales
contracts, he said.
1:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related his understanding that the
DOT&PF's priority is due to the specific purpose such as a road,
airport, or public facility that benefits the borough and the
public. The municipality shouldn't be making money at the
expense of everyone else. He said, "We're not just talking
about the State of Alaska's DOT&PF 'grabbing land' for some
future purpose." He understood the DOT&PF would be using the
land for a specific purpose. Thus, the bill would not preclude
a subdivision of the state from making revenue. Instead, it
sets up the priority that benefits everyone in Alaska.
MR. MENEFEE offered his belief that is correct. He understood
that it would be DOT&PF's intent to provide a public benefit.
He said he cannot speak for the boroughs as to whether the
DOT&PF should be in the top position.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the committee has not had any
comments from boroughs. No one has complained, she said.
1:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to the second point in the
letter. He read, "DOT use may also not be the most economically
valuable use of the land and DNR will therefore not have the
ability to deny a DOT request even if there is a higher or
better use of the land, such as land needed by a school district
or for a public school." He asked whether any examples that
might validate this scenario or if this is a purely theoretical
concern.
MR. MENEFEE responded that is what happens when the DNR makes
decisions on whether to designate a site to sell materials. The
standard the department will undergo is a best interest decision
or what is in the best interest of the state. This bill would
remove the decision process. He envisioned a situation might
arise that would need to be resolved in a different fashion.
For example, if a new pipeline is being built and material is
needed that DOT&PF also needs that normally the DNR would
wrestle the two interests and try to accommodate both. If not,
the department would identify one as being more important than
the other. Under the bill, if the DOT&PF asks for the material
site then the DNR would not issue the decision. Of course,
DOT&PF must evaluate the benefit through the department's public
process. In the event some higher better interest was brought
to the governor's attention, the governor might suggest the
department's use isn't a good idea. He characterized it as
being a different type of process and not one the DNR would
normally take.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that legislators would likely make
comments if it related to a pipeline. Either way, she
anticipated that there would be ways to intervene.
1:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for any specific examples in
which DOT&PF requested an easement or right-of-way that DNR
found was not highest and best use.
MR. MENEFEE cannot recall any denial although one request for a
potential corridor arose. Over time land was conveyed to
municipalities and the initial purpose was defeated due to how
segmented the corridor became. The DNR worked with DOT&PF and
the DNR closed the case since it didn't make sense any more.
That was the only instance he could recall, he said.
1:55:40 PM
MR. BENNETT reported that he served 30 years as right-of-way
chief for the Northern Region and he could not recall a
situation in which an application to DNR for a right-of-way was
denied. He said the reality is that DOT&PF provides public
infrastructure for transportation in the state. In all the
competing instances, whether it is for a school or a pipeline,
the projects rely on the DOT&PF to provide the infrastructure to
provide access to those sites. He envisioned it would need to
be a very important priority before one could consider other
types of projects.
MR. MENEFEE acknowledged that at certain times the DNR has gone
back to DOT&PF to identify other interests the DNR must
accommodate. In those instances the DOT&PF has either
reconditioned the application to adjust to the other needs or
the department has withdrawn its application. Once the DNR has
brought concerns forward, instead of denying the application, it
has highlighted the concerns. The DOT&PF might adjust the
project's size but DNR works diligently to find solutions.
1:57:53 PM
MS. RICE added she discovered the DOT&PF is not good about
contacting the Division of Mine, Land, and Water since the
DOT&PF would not know if someone applied with DNR. She
emphasized that this is something the DOT&PF will add into the
process so the DOT&PF will know any concerns or applications the
DNR may have earlier in the timeframe. She reiterated that is
the DOT&PF's intent.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that is important and she is glad to
have that on the record.
1:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 16 of HB 371, which
grants reciprocal easement rights. He asked for a brief history
and background and the reasons to do so.
MR. LYNCH referred to Version C. The first sentence was removed
and second sentence incorporates the reciprocal exchange. He
highlighted that a reciprocal exchange has been agreed to but
not all of the easements have transferred from the state
government to the federal government. The first sentence mimics
the federal statutes and language was removed to clarify that
DNR was not being asked to take any action. This provision
would authorize the DNR to extend the term of the easements
beyond the five year regulatory limitation upon a best interest
finding by the DNR's commissioner.
2:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that Mr. Mylius pointed
out 66 easement sites have been approved, but 67 have not. He
related Mr. Mylius's understanding that many of the remaining
sites do not have existing facilities and some are also
important access sites. He asked more specifically which sites
comprise the 67 remaining sites.
MR. LYNCH answered that the sites are all submerged land sites
and benefit the U.S. Forest Service such as log transfer
facilities, cabins, and trail access points. The revision to
Section 16 was to address Mr. Mylius's concern that the term
"grant" might direct DNR to make a decision on them so the
language was revised to make it clear that wasn't the case, but
was to give DNR the authority.
2:02:59 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON interjected Mr. Mylius's letter mentions the
proposed CS, Version C addressed his concern.
MR. LYNCH agreed noting Mr. Mylius issued a follow-up letter
dated March 19, 2014.
2:03:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked to double back to the
previous questions about the DOT&PF's priority on state land.
He referred to the highest and best use of land, recalling Mr.
Menefee mentioned when other uses or parties are identified the
DNR works with DOT&PF to resolve the matter to everyone's
satisfaction. He understood the purpose of the bill is to
streamline the process to make things more efficient and save
time. He asked whether the inter-agency time is mostly
paperwork "de rigeur" easements granted by DNR or if delays in
projects are due to actively working with DNR. He asked how
much time is typically involved. More specifically, he asked
how much time is involved if the DOT&PF wants land and no other
parties are interested as compared to an instance in which
DOT&PF wants land and other parties exist and the DNR works to
recondition the request.
MR. BENNETT answered that the interests vary in level from
rights-of-way permits to an interagency land management
assignment which would be a stronger interest for an airport,
and as previously discussed, a material site. Each is different
with varying complexity. He couldn't estimate a timeframe, and
it would also depend on what is on DNR's desk at the time of
application. He hoped to capture all the concerns of the public
in the process that Deputy Commissioner Rice outlined. The
DOT&PF doesn't want to end up in the situation in which the
DOT&PF has analyzed, mitigated, and commenced with the right-of-
way acquisition only to discover the parcel is being planned for
a campground. Although the DOT&PF has not yet had to appeal,
the DOT&PF might need to reinitiate the entire process to seek
an alternative site. There could be some other options;
however, the DOT&PF believes all the interests of the public
will be protected with the DOT&PF's process and nothing will be
lost by streamlining the process as the bill presents.
2:07:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, Version C, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, the CSHB 371 (TRA) was reported from
the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:07:53 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
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.}
3:09:03 PM
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |