SB 255-ILLEGAL USE TRAFFIC PREEMPTION DEVICE  CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 255 to be up for consideration. He noted a committee substitute (CS) had been prepared and he would like a motion to adopt it as the working document. SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 255, \D version. There was no objection and it was so ordered. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and speak to the bill. DENNIS MICHEL, legislative aide to Senator Gene Therriault, explained that the CS pertains to splitting Section 1, subsection (b) into two parts. Added is a second section, (2), which includes authorized employees of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to the group of people that may possess or use traffic preemption devices for official road maintenance related purposes. CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the committee hadn't heard the bill previously and it would be helpful if Mr. Michel would give a brief synopsis to highlight its importance. MR. MICHEL began by informing members that traffic preemption devices are readily available over the Internet to anyone with the money to buy one. The purchaser must check a box stating they are an emergency service provider, but there's no follow up so you won't be caught if you lie. As a result, a growing number of civilians own and use these devices. SB 255 makes it unlawful to possess or use a traffic preemption device if you aren't operating an emergency vehicle. Those who may use the devices include authorized state or municipal employees who are installing, repairing, or maintaining the devices. As previously stated, the CS includes DOT/PF employees in the group that may possess or use the devices for authorized, road maintenance related purposes. SENATOR COWDERY asked if this would include private businesses that put out cones for traffic control. MR. MICHEL replied as long as the company is conducting road maintenance type work authorized by the DOT/PF they would be allowed to use the devices. He noted, however, that emergency vehicles such as police, fire and ambulances use the devices more frequently. SENATOR COWDERY questioned whether wrecking trucks would be included. MR. MICHEL acknowledged he wasn't able to answer the question, but would be happy to find out. SENATOR COWDERY then inquired about getting radio stations that use horns and sirens in their on-air advertising to stop doing so. A constituent, in all seriousness, asked him to pose the question, he said. MR. MICHEL conceded that it would overstep his bounds to give an answer, but he would make an inquiry. CHAIR GARY STEVENS gleaned that the intent is for these devices to be used in an official capacity only and inquired where the CS states that a legal and authorized preemption device may not be used if there is no emergency. MR. MICHEL read subsection (c) (1) on page 2 where an emergency vehicle is defined. CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied the definition of an emergency vehicle is clear. However, it isn't clear that they intend that the emergency vehicle be on an emergency mission for it to be authorized to have and use a traffic preemption device. He asked Mr. Michel whether he thought that might be at all confusing. MR. MICHEL admitted it is a bit confusing and he could look at the wording. SENATOR COWDERY brought up the traffic control issue again. "There's a lot of traffic control [that] goes on here, under contract to the private sector... I don't know if that would be a description of an emergency, but the fact is they're out there in high traffic zones." He used a hockey game at the Sullivan Arena as an example. CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that is one of several important questions that must be addressed. SENATOR COWDERY stated he would take advice from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Alaska State Troopers or police. MR. MICHEL said he previously contacted the troopers, North Star Volunteer Fire Department and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and he would take the questions raised back for further discussion. MR. MICHEL had no additional comments. GARY POWELL, Alaska State Fire Marshall and director of the Division of Fire Prevention, DPS, testified that, "In a number of Alaskan communities, traffic preemption is very important to safe and efficient response to a genuine emergency." The integrity of the system is important for the public to support the system, he said. Because the devices are readily available on the Internet, it's reasonable to assume that private use will proliferate and traffic controls will be manipulated unnecessarily. To maintain public support for the system they feel this is a timely piece of legislation. He noted the commissioner sent a letter of support. SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN questioned how private users would be apprehended. MR. POWELL reported that in the system he is familiar with, a log is maintained, which makes it easy to determine when someone other than an authorized emergency responder has manipulated a traffic signal. Locating the unauthorized user would be difficult however. SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that it's unlikely that unauthorized use would be noted if there isn't conflicting use at a traffic signal. MR. POWELL responded that in the course of a normal stop, police observe the equipment in a car so it's not impossible for the police to notice unauthorized possession. SENATOR HOFFMAN wasn't convinced and noted, "Many people are not stopped for five and ten years." MR. POWELL agreed. SENATOR COWDERY found nothing to indicate that enforcement would be successful. MR. POWELL acknowledged it would be difficult to pinpoint unauthorized use without technology to capture transmissions from the devices. Although he wasn't sure, he said, "They operate on a receiver basis so I would expect, if it became a real problem something could be set up..." CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the bill doesn't say it's illegal to use, "It says unlawful possession is a class A misdemeanor." SENATOR STEDMAN asked for verification that there is a log kept when a law officer changes a signal. MR. POWELL said that is correct. The system he is familiar with logs the time a particular unit preempts a signal. SENATOR STEDMAN commented it appears that police would know if repetitive unauthorized use occurred in a particular area. MR. POWELL thought that would be correct. SENATOR COWDERY commented he would like to follow up on the issue of possession. MR. POWELL added he would like to see the bill include language such as, "possession with the intent to use." SENATOR COWDERY thought it was confusing and asked for the committee to work with the sponsor. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if she had any questions. SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, participating via teleconference, replied her questions had already been asked. DAVE TYLER, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, spoke via teleconference to describe the system. Traffic signals have a device mounted on top that receives a signal from the strobe light on an emergency vehicle. Unless the preemption device is very high end, the user will have a strobe light on their vehicle that is visible to police and others. He referred to page 1, line 6 of the original bill and noted that the original bill addressed both users and people that possess a traffic preemption device. CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked him for pointing that out and said his staff also pointed that out. In the proposed CS, Sec. 11.56.825 addresses both possession and use. MR. TYLER then answered Senator Hoffman's question about other traffic control situations saying this only works at intersections that have a red/green control light. The strobe on the emergency vehicle turns that lane green and all the other lanes red so the emergency vehicle has control of the intersection. If more than one vehicle with a strobe is at an intersection, the vehicle that arrived first has control. The idea is to create a safer environment at the intersection not to clear the intersection so you can go through at top speed. MR. TYLER said he would like to ask Mr. Michel a question. It was his understanding that the CS would include city buses as a local decision, but that wasn't done. He noted that air quality and DOT grants were available to expand these systems and the Municipality of Anchorage was interested. With regard to including buses, he explained that the system is actually a two- tier priority system so that fire and emergency vehicles would always have priority over a bus or other maintenance vehicle. CHAIR GARY STEVENS stopped Mr. Tyler to say page 2, line 3, the definition of an emergency vehicle excludes buses so he wasn't sure what he was asking. MR. TYLER replied the municipalities wanted buses to be included because of the funding that is available if buses are part of the system. His final comments were to advise that wreckers and vehicle removal equipment wouldn't have access to traffic preemption devices and that he too finds some radio station advertizements to be distracting. CHAIR GARY STEVENS said the issue Senator Cowdery raised was whether the vehicles that move the traffic cones to direct traffic after an accident would have the preemption devices. He understands Mr. Tyler to say they would not be included. MR. TYLER repeated he understands vehicle wreckers would not be included. SENATOR COWDERY asked how school buses fit into the picture. MR. TYLER said they don't fit in the picture. Municipal buses were the only buses discussed. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and clarify the following: · The definition of official capacity. · Are vehicles that put out cones to divert traffic included? · The issue of enforcement · Buses MR. MICHEL dealt with Senator Cowdery's question first and told members that the vehicles that put down and pick up traffic cones don't use traffic preemptory devices so they don't need to be addressed in the bill. They were considered and the decision was that it wouldn't be safe for those vehicles to use preemption devices. He asked if buses were the next issue. CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied Mr. Tyler from the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association asked the question about buses. MR. MICHEL read Department of Transportation and Public Facilities from page 1, line 15, and said, "Under there I would see a bus being a vehicle of that public facility and therefore..." CHAIR GARY STEVENS told him that refers to the state agency so it wouldn't include municipal buses. MR. MICHEL said, "Okay." SENATOR HOFFMAN said he thought the testimony was that buses should be eligible to carry the devices, but emergency vehicles would take precedence in the two-tier priority system. MR. MICHEL agreed. SENATOR HOFFMAN added Mr. Tyler's point was that the agreement was that buses were to be included, but that didn't happen. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he was talking about the definition on page 2, line 3 and that it doesn't include buses. SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "He's saying there should be another section in here that buses are included, but they do not preempt emergency vehicles." CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel if he knew why Mr. Tyler wanted to include buses. MR. MICHEL replied, "The best way to describe it is you're trying to get traffic to flow as easily as possible and by civilians using these traffic preemption devices - they can disrupt traffic patterns because all these lights are timed. As a bus using it - that's a bus filled with 50 people instead of 50 cars so that helps facilitate traffic flowing." CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if that means that a bus would be able to use a traffic preemption device at any time along its route. MR. MICHEL said, "That is correct sir." CHAIR GARY STEVENS observed that might raise havoc in Anchorage. MR. MICHEL suggested a different approach might be better. Emergency vehicles were established as the primary group to use the devices and exemptions were listed subsequently. Perhaps, he proposed, clarifying how the buses work is in order. "In other states, buses are allowed to use car pool lanes, allowed to go through right turn only lanes. So this would just be another way for a bus to use traffic to facilitate transportation." CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he had any other clarification. He then noted Senator Cowdery had a question. SENATOR COWDERY said he would like to clear the constitutional problem of possession before the bill was heard again. SENATOR HOFFMAN added the wording should be, "possession with intent to use." CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented the idea is sound and good intentioned, but a number of questions were raised and he didn't intend to move the bill that day. He asked Mr. Michel if he had any more comments. MR. MICHEL replied he would address the questions next time. CHAIR GARY STEVENS said it was his intention to hear the bill next week if the schedule permitted. He thanked Mr. Michel and held SB 255 in committee.