SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8 Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the University of Alaska. -SCHEDULED, BUT NOT HEARD SB 8 AIRPORT/SHOOTING FACILITY NOISE LEVELS  CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:41 p.m. and announced SB 8 to be up for consideration. He noted a letter from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) requesting an amendment that required a substantial change in use of the facility. SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the letter also wanted to delete "prohibition" of the CS on page 2, line 1 and insert "exemption." She asked why that hadn't been done. CHAIRMAN HALFORD replied that it wasn't a major concern and the two words meant the same, but were simply different styles. Number 40 SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS to SB 8. SENATOR LINCOLN objected for purposes of discussion on the issue. MR. ROBERT REED, Department of Law, said he had talked with Kevin Ritchie, Executive Director, AML, who said the use of "exemption" was made for consistency throughout the bill. MR. REED said that the general rule in a court of law is that if you use a different term, you must have a different meaning. They assumed the legislature didn't have a different meaning. SENATOR LINCOLN said she would like to further amend the bill, then, so it would be consistent. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said as a general rule he would go along with legislative drafters rather than outside agencies and he wasn't exactly sure why it was done. SENATOR TAYLOR explained that "prohibition" was against bringing a nuisance suit under this section and he thought it was much clearer worded that way. SENATOR LINCOLN withdrew her objection. SENATOR TAYLOR objected briefly to say that his only concern was that using terms like "unless the facility substantially changes the use of the facility after the person acquired the property" was a pretty good sized loophole. And this law is trying to establish something that is clear-cut. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was willing to go along with it because he thought they meant a substantial change to mean air carrier aircraft vs. light aircraft and not the number of flights or the amount of activity; and if it was their intention to change it based on the amount of activity, he wasn't interested in changing it. SENATOR SHARP questioned using "usages" on line 6 instead of "use." MR. REED said he thought "substantial change" would depend on the facts of a particular case unless there is a clear intent statement. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would agree with Senator Halford's analogy of a shooting range that was only open on weekends changing to being open seven days a week being a substantial change. MR. REED replied that it certainly could be construed that way. The only case he read today that had to do with substantial changes was the airport case in which case they had paved what was formerly a dirt airport. That significantly changed the traffic and opened it to larger aircraft. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't mind the larger aircraft, but he did mind the increased traffic. He suggested the wording: "a substantial change to the type of use of the facility." MR. REED responded that using more adjectives restricts the meaning a court could consider a substantial change. Number 186 SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his motion to adopt the CS to SB 8 and moved to pass SB 8 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.