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.}