HB 271-COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS  1:09:02 PM CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the state highway system and commercial motor vehicle requirements." 1:09:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, stated that HB 271 will expand the gross vehicle rate (GVR) weight rating from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds to allow newer pickups to operate without being considered commercial vehicles. As an aside, he mentioned he holds a commercial vehicle license. He pointed out that newer pickups and the GVR is over the 10,000 pound limit for noncommercial vehicles. He related that the Alaska Trucking Association (ATA) suggested these changes and the bill received favorable comments thus far. He has also worked with the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) on the matter. 1:11:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE Munoz moved the proposed Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 271, labeled 27-LS1158\I, Martin, 2/10/12, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version I was before the committee. 1:11:35 PM JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, stated that the current law was written in 1999 at a time when pickup trucks were smaller. He related that some pickup trucks are used as pilot trucks and this bill would allow them to include a "one- ton dually," which a vehicle with an extra set of rear tires, in a noncommercial status. These dual-wheel vehicles put more tire on the road to spread out the weight so there is less wear and tear on the roads. He admitted while is not an expert on trucking that several testifiers are present to answer questions. 1:12:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to address any cost savings. MR. POUND deferred to the DOT&PF to address any cost savings. He reported that many individuals driving pilot cars are under 18 years of age and are not eligible for commercial drivers' licenses. This bill would allow them to drive one-ton vehicles while still working towards their commercial vehicle certification. He suggested that sometimes workers on construction sites are asked to run errands such as to pick up something at a lumber yard and this will allow them to do so. 1:14:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for clarification on the changes contained in Version I. MR. POUND answered the primary change made was to remove language that pertained to federal hazardous materials that the state must comply with [under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)], often referred to as HAZMAT. 1:14:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding one reason the HAZMAT placards are placed on vehicles is to notify first responders of the impending issue of hazardous materials. He asked for any compelling reason to remove this requirement. MR. POUND answered that the placards are federally managed but are state inspected. 1:15:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, which read, "(A) used to transport passengers or property for intrastate commercial purposes;" which relates to commercial vehicles. He asked how this language would apply to interstate commercial purposes and whether this vehicle would be considered a commercial vehicle. MR. POUND offered his belief that it would not be considered a commercial vehicle if the vehicle is under 14,000 pounds. He suggested the same rules would apply to any vehicle under 14,000 pounds GVW. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for an explanation of adding the phrase. He referred back to page 3, line 1, to the language that increases the weight from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds. DAN BREEDEN, Director, Division of Measurement Standards & Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), responded that the bill would deregulate the operations in intrastate commerce under those specific rules. He said that all federal rules would apply as usual to any interstate commerce. 1:17:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that the intent of HB 271 is to allow F-350 trucks normally driven as personal vehicles to be used on construction sites. He questioned whether that goal can be accomplished simply by changing the weight requirements. He further questioned whether a vehicle would be considered a private noncommercial vehicle based solely on the vehicle weight falling below 14,000 pounds. MR. BREEDEN answered that the minimum weight is being raised from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds for intrastate commerce to accommodate and not regulate those vehicles. The division has previously treated commercial vehicles the same whether they were used for interstate or intrastate purposes. He explained that currently drivers under 18 years of age are not allowed to operate commercial vehicles. He added that other requirements, such as rules associated with hours of service would also apply; however, it would be unacceptable to regulate interstate commerce due to the federal requirements. He characterized the federal regulations as being overreaching ones. 1:18:37 PM CHAIR P. WILSON paraphrased that in Alaska the state would raise the standard for younger drivers and allows them to use vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 pounds, but limited to 14,000 pounds or less; however, federal rules would continue to apply for interstate use. MR. BREEDEN concurred. 1:19:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired as to whether HAZMAT rules would apply to commercial vehicles used in intrastate commerce. MR. BREEDEN answered absolutely yes. The HAZMAT rules would apply to any HAZMAT transport regardless of the size or weight of the vehicle. He stated that the federal interstate rules would also apply since HAZMAT is a federal program. He explained that the DOT&PF adopts and enforces the federal law. He reiterated that the federal law applies with respect to HAZMAT. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, line 9, and also to page 3, lines 4-7 of the bill. He questioned the reason to include this specific language in statute. MR. BREEDEN responded that the language is redundant. The rule applies without this added statutory language so the language was removed for clarity. 1:20:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled earlier testimony that people under the ages of 18 were driving pilot cars. He said based on his experience of having hired numerous drivers in his business career that the first requirement is drivers must be 18 years or older in order to obtain insurance coverage. He questioned the safety factors of using drivers under the age of 18 to operate pilot vehicles, assuming the vehicles following the pilot vehicle are carrying extremely large loads and are ones that will require oversize permits. MR. POUND was aware some drivers under the age 18 hold a commercial driver's license (CDL) and operate pilot vehicles. He offered his belief that the CDL requirement "kicks in" at 10,000 pounds. He suggested it was possible for someone to drive a pilot vehicle, but not obtain a CDL to drive a truck. 1:22:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled earlier testimony with respect to less road wear by trucks. He was unsure of the context. MR. POUND clarified that he was referring to dual-wheel trucks and not the smaller F-110 trucks. 1:22:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 3 and to the definition. He expressed concern that this language would remove the authority of the state to inspect vehicles under this section involved in interstate commerce. MR. BREEDEN responded that the interstate regulations are adopted in 17 AAC, Chapter 25. He explained that the DOT&PF adopts these federal regulations by reference so all the rules would apply, but this section would eliminate the state's oversight of intrastate operations for vehicles weighing less than 14,000 pounds. 1:24:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether this section would only apply to Title 19, but would not apply to Title 17. MR. BREEDEN asked for clarification on the question. REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to page 2, beginning on line 24, and asked whether the state has the authority to inspect interstate commerce other than in Title 19. MR. BREEDEN answered yes. He referred to the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Title 17, which adopts the interstate requirements under 49 CFR 300-399, almost entirely. 1:25:03 PM AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association (ATA), Inc., stated the ATA is a statewide organization that represents the interests of nearly 200 member companies from Barrow to Ketchikan. He related that freight movement represents a large segment of the state's economy and affects everyone each and every day. He said, "The simple truth is that if you got it, a truck brought it." He also said that as vehicles have gotten larger they now fall under the current definition of intrastate commercial motor vehicles, which have historically not been considered commercial vehicles, such as pickup trucks, small step vans, and small trailers. Version I would change the definition of intrastate commercial vehicles to those vehicles under 14,000 pounds to reduce the regulation. This bill is aimed at small contractors, such as small delivery vehicles, vans, small step vans, and trailers. He related one of the ATA's legislative priorities is to change the definition of intrastate commercial vehicle to reduce the regulatory burden on small business. He elaborated that for purposes of commercial vehicle regulation and inspection Version I would raise the weight threshold on intrastate commercial vehicles from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds GVW rating for inspection and safety regulation purposes. MR. THOMPSON said HB 271 would affect small contractors, such as lawn care workers, carpenters, plumbing and heating professionals, small delivery vehicles, and pilot cars who use those types of vehicles. Pickup trucks and small step-vans are getting larger and heavier and have been exceeding the current 10,000 pounds GVW rating and by definition are designated as commercial vehicles for safety and inspection purposes. Pilot cars are vehicles that accompany oversize load to serve as an extension of the warning system for oversize loads. Their work is almost always designated as intrastate commerce and would fall under the bill. He related that the "bump" over the 10,000 mark requires drivers to obtain medical certification, complete daily vehicle inspection reports, perform annual inspections, and submit several other items to DOT&PF for compliance. Additionally, vehicles over the 10,000 pound threshold are also subject to federal regulations adopted into the DOT&PF's Alaska Administrative Code. This bill would exclude commercial vehicles no more than 14,000 pounds GVW rating from unnecessary regulation. This bill would not change the commercial status of intrastate vehicles for the purposes of registration with the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Further, this bill has no fiscal impact on the state. He emphasized that these vehicles do not need this level of scrutiny since they typically operate in a limited geographical area and are not subject to the wear and tear that other larger commercial vehicles experience. He urged members to act favorably on this bill. 1:28:43 PM CHAIR P. WILSON asked him to elaborate on any costs associated with the DOT&PF's requirements. MR. THOMPSON acknowledged that some costs are associated with acquiring forms, but not for registering with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to obtain a DOT number. Additionally, other regulations require annual reporting on the number of vehicles, drivers, and insurance updates. These inspections can be time-consuming, taking anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes each day to inspect a vehicle, prepare and submit the necessary reports to the dispatcher or management of the company. Those forms must be held and are subject to audits. Further, annual medical certifications are also required. Each of these requirements has associated costs. The ATA finds these requirements unnecessary regulation and this bill will lighten the burden on small businesses and pilot car operators. 1:30:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked when a commercial vehicle is required to submit to weight scales. MR. THOMPSON answered that currently commercial vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds must submit to weigh scales. He stated that under this bill a 14,000 pound noncommercial vehicle would not be required to stop at a weigh station. 1:31:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT noted that having a lower weight limit for noncommercial vehicles will affect a significant number of people, including independent delivery drivers. He emphasized that it is time consuming for these vehicles to submit to weigh stations. He related a scenario in which a small delivery van may be subjected to a 5-45 minute delay in order to stop at a weigh station. Additionally, some employees of smaller companies may only be employed for six months, but must submit to the requirements for commercial vehicle drivers. He offered his belief that this bill will help small business owners and independent operators who should not be subjected to the added requirements. He suggested improved technology of the vehicles and what they can withstand has also increased. 1:32:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this is a good bill and he is a cosponsor of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for DOT&PF's position on the bill. MR. BREEDEN responded that the DOT&PF is very much in favor of the bill as written. 1:33:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the bill title, which relates to the state highway system. He suggested the committee may wish to tighten the title. He asked whether the sponsor would agree to an amendment. MR. POUND answered that the sponsor would have no problem tightening the title. 1:35:33 PM CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 271. 1:35:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt a Conceptual Amendment 1, to narrow the title as narrowly as possible. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested adding language to the existing title, "and the weight threshold limits for commercial motor vehicles." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that the specific language would suffice for the second half of the title, but he remained concerned that the first half of the title is broad enough to allow activities such as naming bridges, which he found as acceptable language. He asked the committee to allow the bill drafters to develop language to tighten the title. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:37:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 271, Version 27-LS1158\I, Martin, 2/10/12, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 271(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee. 1:37:49 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.