STRA-260512-1330

ស្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុំ ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ស្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រុង្រ

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Transportation Committee to order. The time is 2:07 PM. We are in Butrovich Room 205. In the nation's most beautiful sunny capital city of Juneau, Alaska, today is Tuesday, May 12th, 2026.

Members present are Senator Steadman, Senator Kiehl, Senator Tobin, and myself, Senator Bjorkman. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Welcome everyone to Senate Transportation. Please turn off or silence your cell phones. I'd like to recognize and welcome our recording secretary, Heather Ramseth, and our LEO moderator, Doug Bridges.

Our agenda for today is House Bill 302, travel insurance. Following that will be House Bill 217, autonomous vehicles. First up, House Bill 302, travel insurance, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Carolyn Hall. This is our second hearing on this bill. During our first hearing, we had a presentation of the bill and took invited testimony.

I would like to invite the bill sponsor's staff, Mr. Keith Bruce, to the table. To provide us with a brief recap of the bill. Mr. Bruce, welcome back to Senate Transportation. Please put yourself on the record and begin a brief recap.

Good afternoon, Chair Bjorkman, Vice Chair Tobin, and the members of the House— or Senate Transportation Committee. For the record, my name is Keith Bruce, staffed Representative Hall, who would have liked to be here today, but we're still figuring out how to get her in two places at once. Um, I will provide a brief recap of the legislation before the committee. Alaska's current travel insurance statutes have not been updated in over a decade. In the intervening time, travel insurance industry has grown, highlighting the gaps in Alaska's current travel insurance statutes.

HB 302, a companion to SB 244, provides a comprehensive, uniform, and national regulatory framework that would replace Alaska's current framework. This legislation strengthens consumer protection, clarifies lines of authority for the Division of Insurance, and provides a level playing field for insurance providers. Modernizing travel insurance in our state will encourage insurance providers to enter the Alaskan market and make consumers more comfortable purchasing travel insurance. Ultimately, this bill will support Alaska's growing travel industry. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce.

Are there any questions for the bill sponsor staff?

No. That's good.

We have a committee substitute that is in members' packets. May I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move committee substitute for House Bill 302, version 34-LS1436/h, as in huslia, as our working document. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, House Bill 302 version 34-LS1436/h as in huslia is before us as a working document.

I will now invite my staff, Ms. Laura Asche, to the table to present the changes in the committee substitute.

Thank you very much, Chair Bjorkman. For the record, I am Laura Asche, staff to Senator Jesse Bjorkman, where the J is silent but he is not.

Brief it is.

We're back on the record. It's 2:11 now in Senate Transportation. I believe my staff, Ms. Laura Asche, was about to go through the changes provided in the committee substitutes in members' packets. Thank you very much, Chair Berkman. Yes, the change in version H is to incorporate language from Senate Bill Senate Bill 185, which has passed the Senate and is now in the House for consideration.

Senate Bill 185 lowers costs by allowing insurers to cover preventative tools and programs that would make the person or their property less costly to insure. This would include offering things for free like smoke detectors and carbon monoxide sensors for your home, or wellness programs and heart rate monitors for you or your family members. Specifically, inserting that language into HB 302 does the following: it inserts sections 4 through 8 into version H. Section 4 would amend AS 21-36.010 to add the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act to the list of federal laws the chapter is in accordance with. Section 5 amends AS 21-36.110 to add that the offer or provision by an insurer of a product or service at a reduced cost as an exemption to the definition of insurance discrimination if the service or product is related to the policyholder's insurance coverage and is designed to provide specific aid to the consumer as defined in statute. Section 6 amends AS 2136.110, adding a list of provisions that the insurer must meet and defines what is allowable for insurers in terms of non-cash gifts.

The product or service may not only be offered to an individual negotiating a group policy on behalf of others. This section adds a provision for an insurer who has a good faith belief that a product or service meets certain criteria defined in A6C. The insurer may provide the service or product as part of a pilot program. This section also allows the director to adopt regulations. Section 7 amends AS2136 by adding a new section, AS2136.115, defining prohibited advertising practices by insurers.

And Section 8 amends AS 2136.120(a), making a technical change to conform with current industry and licensing terminology. Section 9, renumbered from Section 4, was amended in a previous CS that the committee adopted at the last hearing, but I included that information here in this sectional analysis for future transparency. Section 12 allows for the reg— for regulations to be drafted for Sections 4 through 8, the language that came over from SB 185. Section 13 provides an immediate effective date for drafting those regulations, and Section 14 provides an effective date of January 1st, 2027, for the remainder of the bill.

Thank you very much, Ms. Ache. Are there any questions from committee members?

Chair Bjorkman, I would note that we do have Laura Curtis, who, uh, and also Heather Carpenter here, who worked on the language in SB 185 and could answer any questions much better probably than I could. Excellent. Are there any questions for either Ms. Curtis or Director Carpenter?

Seeing no questions, we will now open public testimony on House Bill 302.

Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Seeing and hearing no one wishing to testify, we will now close public testimony on House Bill 302.

That brings House Bill 302 back before the committee. Is there any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, what are the wishes of the committee?

Mr. Chairman, I move to report Committee Substitute for House Bill 302, version 34, dash LS1436 backslash H as in huslia from committee with individual recommendations and a forthcoming fiscal note. Is there any objection?

Seeing and hearing no objection, Committee Substitute for House Bill 302, version 34, dash LS1436 backslash H as in hogzida is reported from committee with individual recommendations negotiations and the forthcoming fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for the next bill.

We're back on the record. Next up is House Bill 217. Autonomous Vehicles, sponsored by the House Transportation Committee. This is our second hearing on this bill. I would like to invite the chair of the House Transportation Committee, the Honorable Representative Ashley Carrick, and her staff Griffin Suki— sorry, I said your name wrong again, Griffin— to the table to provide a brief recap of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Bjorkman, and good afternoon, members of the Senate Transportation Committee. For the record, Ashley Carrick representing West Fairbanks. And House Bill 217, in broad brushstrokes, requires human safety operator in commercial vehicles. And we have a committee substitute today which broadens the scope of the bill just a bit, and my staff would be able to cover those changes as well. Thank you for that, Representative Carrick.

Members do have in their packets a proposed committee substitute. May I please have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move committee substitute for House Bill 217, version 34-LS0950/h as in Houston as our working document. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, version 34-LS0950/h as in Haines is before us as a working document.

Mr. Griffin, would you please take us through the changes? Absolutely. Through the chair, for the record, Griffin Sukeo, staff to Representative Carrick and the House Transportation Committee. In Section 2, subsection B-1, an autonomous vehicle registered in the state may not engage in the transport of commerce or goods unless the transport is for personal, non-commercial use and has a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or less and is designed to transport not more than 16 passengers, including the driver. Section 2, subsection B.2, an autonomous vehicle registered in the state may not engage in the transport of passengers unless the vehicle has a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or less and is designed not to carry not more than 16 passengers, including the driver.

And Section 2, subsection C, except for a commercial autonomous vehicle with a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or less, that is transporting passengers, an autonomous vehicle operated in this state must have a human safety operator who has the ability to monitor and intervene in the vehicle's performance, including operating or shutting off the vehicle. And then all other sections are renumbered accordingly. Thank you very much, Mr. Sukao. We appreciate that explanation. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor about the committee substitute?

Seeing, hearing none at this time, we are going to open public testimony on this item. We have a few people online to testify. Public testimony will be limited to 2 minutes a person. Once we reach 2 minutes, I will simply prompt you to wrap up your testimony. Please do so within 10 or 15 seconds.

If you continue to go on, I will just prompt our LIO moderator to move on to the next testifier. All members may submit testimony in writing at any time to our email address at [email protected], and you can send us an email with your written testimony. Our first testifier online is Mr. Robert Shingleton. Please state your name, affiliation, and location for the record. And begin your testimony.

You have 2 minutes. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Robert Singleton, and I serve as the Senior Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Chamber of Progress. We are a tech industry association that supports inclusive innovation.

So I'm here today in respectful opposition to HB 217 because as written, it would impose a human driver-in requirement for commercial autonomous vehicles in Alaska, including light-duty delivery service. This would effectively ban the use of this highly beneficial technology that stands to create new jobs, improve road safety, and improve transportation accessibility. Furthermore, by requiring a human driver for commercial AV operation with no pilot program, no permit pathway, no means of conducting program testing, and no sunset clause, Alaska would be the only state in the country to impose such a requirement at a time when both automotive accidents and shortage of commercial truck drivers are at an all-time high. And just to be clear, no other state in the not one, has enacted a human driver requirement. Alaska will be the only state to ban this technology and thus send a clear signal the state is not open for new business and innovation.

To focus on safety, research shows that 90% of car crashes are caused by preventable human error, mainly distracted driving and driving under the influence. AVs don't drive drunk, they don't get tired, they don't need to look away from the road in order to look at their GPS or respond to text messages. Uh, autonomous vehicle sensor systems can also detect obstacles hundreds of meters away, even in low-light conditions. LIDAR, a core component of these systems, can see farther than the human eye and conventional cameras in the fog. The technology is also evolving quickly, and testing is already underway in extreme winter environments like upstate New York and Canada, with upgraded sensors and integrated cleaning systems designed to maintain performance in snow and ice.

Beyond safety, AVs will expand transportation options for underserved communities like Alaskans in rural areas who cannot drive, whether because of age or disability or even high costs. These are folks who stand to benefit the most from AV services like rideshare, paratransit, and expanded delivery in harsh conditions. By blocking autonomous freight, HB 217 would keep Alaska locked into a supply chain that is expensive, fragile, and presently understaffed, raising prices for families across the state who are already struggling. So I'll let my other colleagues talk about potential for job growth and other considerations, but please, for the sake of saving lives and reducing costs, do not impose a de facto ban on commercial autonomous vehicles. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Singleton. Where are you calling from today?

I'm calling from California. Very good, thank you. Up next is Mr. Benjamin Glenn. Benjamin Glenn is here with DOT. He's available for questions, not public testimony.

We'll come back to him and ask him some questions. Next up is Rose Feliciano. Ms. Feliciano, please state your name, affiliation, and location for the record and begin your testimony. You have 2 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Borkman and members of the committee. My name is Rose Feliciano. I'm here on behalf of TechNet. I am calling today from Seattle, Washington. Safety is a top priority for TechNet and our members when it comes to autonomous vehicle technology.

We agree Alaskan should have strong oversight and thoughtful standards regarding how this technology is tested and deployed. However, HB 217 goes far beyond establishing guardrails. As drafted, the bill would effectively stop autonomous vehicle development in Alaska before the technology even has the opportunity to be explored, tested, or adapted to Alaska's unique conditions. The reality is companies will not invest in states where the law prohibit— effectively prevents innovation from occurring in the first place. If this bill passes in its current form, Alaska risks, risks sending the message that the state is closed to the future of freight technology and transportation innovation.

Importantly, no state has enacted this type of outright barrier to autonomous vehicle deployment. Other states have recognized that while safety oversight is essential, Completely foreclosing testing and development prevents states from understanding whether this technology can operate safely and provide long-term benefits. And for Alaska, these potential benefits are important. Autonomous freight technology could help address supply chain reliability, transportation access, and workforce shortages, especially for remote and difficult-to-reach communities. None of these opportunities can be evaluated if companies are prevented from operating in Alaska at all.

TechNet respectfully urges the committee not to move HB 217 in its current form forward, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with you on developing some strong safety oversight while still permitting responsible innovation and, and investment I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Up next is Carl Augustine. Mr. Augustine, please state your name, affiliation, location for the record, and begin your testimony, please.

Yes, Mr. Chair and members, my name is Kurt Augustine. I'm Senior Director of State Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and I'm testifying from Sacramento, California. We represent the traditional automakers, AV technology providers, and most of the rest of the auto industry. Unfortunately, I'm here today to testify in respectful opposition to HB 217.

HB 217 would effectively ban autonomous light-duty vehicles for commercial use. While the bill does provide exemptions for personal use in Section 28.90.05(b), That very same section clearly bans the use of AVs without having an in-vehicle safety operator. This restriction would effectively ban the deployment of driverless ride-hailing services as well, a move that could disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including individuals with disabilities, older adults, and rural citizens who stand to benefit most from the increased independence, delivery of goods, and the specialized mobility that fully autonomous technology provides. The services these people need are often more expensive, and those costs often restrict access to those services. AV technology provides the promise of more available and less costly services to those who require the most.

HB 217 would cause Alaska to fall behind other states on AV innovation. No state that authorizes AV deployment requires a human observer to remain in the vehicle. AVs will increase road safety. There's no question about that. AVs have tremendous safety, mobility, and efficiency benefits, and the ongoing deployment of AVs is demonstrating how AVs will save lives and change the way we move.

AV technology has been tested and deployed in states across the country and maintains an incredible safety record. The majority of states recognize that the many benefits of AVs, which authorize driverless AV operations, including for commercial use. If Alaska were to move forward with this bill, it would become a national outlier. While Alaska naturally seeks to be a leader, it should not be a leader at banning technologies that can help its citizens. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Augustine. All right, our final testimony that is appearing online at the moment is Mr. Blake Calvert. Mr. Calvert, please state your name, affiliation, and location for the record and begin your testimony. You have 2 minutes.

Chairman Bjorkman, Vice Chair Tobin, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Blake Calvert, testifying from Dripping Springs, Texas, and I'm the public affairs manager at Kodiak AI. An autonomous trucking developer. I'm here today to express our opposition to HB 217, which, as previously noted, would make Alaska the first and only state in the country to ban autonomous trucks. I echo the sentiments previously mentioned by TechNet, Chamber for Progress, and others.

Over the past 6 years, Kodiak has made 15,600 customer deliveries and driven over 3 million autonomous miles. Over those 3 million miles, we have always prioritized safety and are proud to have a stellar safety record. Kodiak is proud to have the first-ever commercial deployment of a customer-owned driverless fleet with 28 trucks deployed in support of Atlas Energy Solutions' frac sand operation in the, in the Permian Basin. Since its deployment in early 2025, Kodiak has amassed over 23,500 paid hours of operation, show— showcasing the Kodiak driver's ability to increase fleet efficiency in unstructured, rugged environments where it can be hard to find and retain drivers. This technology can obviously be beneficial to Alaska's energy sector, and indeed we have had initial conversations with operators on, on the North Slope.

Kodiak recently announced a pilot with West Fraser, one of the world's largest wood products companies, to test the Kodiak Driver in the rugged expanse of Alberta timber country. This further proves that operators in all kinds of environments, including those with inclement conditions, are exploring what autonomy solutions we can provide. This pilot will enable Kodiak to conduct further testing and deployment in these rugged expanses, strengthening our technology and enabling future customers in these environments. Driverless does not mean humanless. According to the Alaska Trucking Association's 2025 Fast Facts, the qualified driver shortage in Alaska was the number 2 issue facing the trucking industry in the state.

With the average trucking fleet experiencing over 70% driver turnover annually and many fleets exceeding 100%, autonomy stands ready to be a supplement, not a replacement, to the current freight demands of Alaska citizens and businesses. Autonomous fleets still require mechanics, fleet support, dispatch, and operations specialists, and Kodiak stands ready to partner with the state of Alaska and its companies to best engage in workforce development conversations regarding autonomous fleet operations. As previously mentioned, if Alaska seeks to create a pathway for the safe, deliberate deployment of AVs in the state, taking into account the dynamic environment and challenges Alaska presents, we have experience with regulatory concepts from 25 states that specifically allow this technology to deploy. Unfortunately, this bill would fully shut the door to even testing autonomous trucks in the state of Alaska while prohibiting Robotaxi deployment. I respectfully request that you vote no on HB 217.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Senator Tobin has a question for you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Calvert, I'm just curious, as, uh, I don't know the answer to this and I hope you might, can you talk about your testing and the work that you've done to ensure that your autonomous vehicles can operate when they are offline or they don't have access to internet? And just to confirm that I heard you correctly, you're talking about loss of signal? Yes, sir. Thinking like if you have 2, 3, 4 hours of no signal, what is the work that your company has done to test in those conditions?

So we have previously done, like, and a good example is our deployment out in the Permian Basin, similar to Alaska, very limited cell service, very limited signal. We utilize other— we utilize satellite internet so that we do not have that loss of that, of any type of connectivity for those trucks. If we do experience that, our truck goes into what's called a fallback. To where it reaches a safe stop state and will pull over to the side of the road to where it is out of the way of moving traffic. And we will deploy fleet specialists to service the vehicle at that time.

Thank you.

Any— Senator Keele? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm thinking about the width of the.

Dalton and the absence or almost total absence of pullouts. How do you see that working? Is that not a scenario where you have basically almost complete closure of the highway that connects Fairbanks to the, to Prudhoe?

So again, I'll tie back to our experience operating in the Permian Basin where you don't have nice, neat lane lines, very rugged environment, very narrow roads. So depending on the circumstance and depending on the instance, we will deploy that specialist to either manually move the vehicle or we will analyze what the fallback is. A lot of issues we're able to triage remotely.

Different question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Senator Keel. Thank you, sir. You, I think, are the, the second person to mention that you thought the bill had an impact on, uh, on robotaxis or on individual passenger vehicles. And as I read the text of it, I'm not seeing that.

I think it says, unless the transport is for personal use. Can you help me with how you're reading that?

Sure thing. And I do understand they all have a new committee sub before you, and I, I have not seen that draft. In previous drafts, it was talking about any commercial operations for interstate commerce, goods, or passengers, but I have not seen the most recent language for the committee sub that was just laid out before you, so I can't, I can't speak to that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Calvert.

Representative Carrick, would you like to recite the affected portion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just for committee members' information, both the original version of this bill and the current committee substitute before you did not exclude the type of traffic that was just described, aka right now, you know, in some other states, Waymo would be the primary operator as a company, but that type of Taxi service traffic or commercial vehicle is not excluded, and it's not excluded from operation in the current committee substitute. The current committee substitute before the committee includes functionally two portions of this potential market in the state: commercial— large commercial traffic over 16,000 pounds, aka the Dalton Highway scenario that was described earlier, and And also, as of this committee substitute, personally owned vehicles that are autonomous. And while this is not really a market at this time, the motivation was to prevent fully autonomous personal use vehicles.

Say John Doe owns a Tesla and wants to send his Tesla to the grocery store. The current draft of this bill would require the person to be present as a human safety operator. So those are the two ends of the spectrum currently covered in the legislation.

Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Calvert? Seeing none, we will go now to Noelani Derrickson. Please state your name, affiliation, and location for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Hi, my name is Noelani Derrickson from Tesla. I am located in California and represent Tesla's interests. In the western United States. Tesla has meaningful operations in Alaska. We conduct rigorous severe weather testing in Delta Junction to evaluate vehicle performance for all of our vehicle models, from passenger vehicles to the fully electric Tesla Semi truck.

We also are working on expanding EV charging access throughout the state with 51 Tesla Superchargers and charging expansion plans across the Pan-American Highway. I'll just keep this brief and echo others in opposition. Tesla is strongly opposed to HB 217. As we read it, it would effectively close the Alaskan market for both light-duty commercial autonomous vehicle operations as well as for full operation of Tesla's electric semi-truck in the future. Alaska would absolutely be an outlier if this bill were to be enacted.

We do strongly urge the committee to reject HB 217 or work on amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Thank you, Ms. Derrickson, for your testimony. Any questions? Hearing and seeing none, is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

Hearing no one, public testimony is closed. That brings the bill back before the committee. Online for questions from the Department of Transportation is Ben Glenn. Mr. Glenn, thank you for being available for us today. Could you please share some perspective from the Department of Transportation on this legislation?

Yes, uh, to the committee, uh, through the chair, Senator Bjorkman, we thank you and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bill today. We've been watching this closely for, uh, a little over a year now, it looks like. We would like to acknowledge all the work that's already been done on the bill and are very appreciative to Mr. Glenn's concerns that we've already—. Yep, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you please state your name for the record?

Oh, I apologize, um, Chair Bjorkman. My name is Benjamin Glenn. I am the Emerging Technologies Coordinator for the Alaska Department of Transportation.

Thank you. Continue.

Sorry, I just experienced an audio issue. Are you still able to hear me? We are. Okay, um, so we, we had some concerns, I will say, from the department, and one of the things we would like to bring up is that the bill in all of its drafts has always introduced Mr. Glenn, we did lose you there for a minute.

Okay, well, I will try and figure out on my end why we continue. I will just say that the definitions of operational design domain and some of those other things that are at the bottom of the bill, the levels of autonomy, they're kind of 10-year-old concepts that don't kind of meet modern Society of Automotive Engineers standards from J3016 level of autonomy. So, they don't really take into account, we probably feel sophisticatedly enough, the capabilities of, for instance, Level 4 autonomous vehicles that by design sometimes don't even enable human intervention. So, for instance, with Waymo's, this is just an example, not saying that the bill necessarily goes after robotaxis anymore, but with Waymo's, it may look like a person can interact with the vehicle, but actually you cannot. If you try to interact with the, the human input of pedals and steering wheel in the vehicle, the vehicle will shut down potentially.

There's other types of vehicles that are getting waivers to no longer include things like steering wheels, pedals, reverse mirrors, side mirrors, etc. There's all kinds of alternative forms like Zoox's shuttle that are going to allow for different forms of vehicles that are going to be allowed federally, but this kind of language and assumption that a vehicle would be human-interactable doesn't necessarily congeal with. I would also like to add that the framework currently with the vehicle weight definition may accidentally prohibit some of the safest and most practical early Alaska use cases that we could get into to test and deploy autonomous vehicles, like the Veterans Affairs shuttles or university commuter shuttles. Also, something I've been interested in particularly is autonomous crash-mounted attenuator trucks for maintenance zones where we could make a platooning type of follow vehicle with a crash-mounted attenuator on the back of the vehicle protect, say, like our striping operators on the roadway. So, there's many things that we think the bill might still be doing unintentionally, and quite honestly, I think it's fair to say that the department would appreciate, um, the, the committee taking a little bit more time with the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Glenn. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, um, thank you for being available. This bill has picked up another committee referral. That will be the State Affairs Committee where I look forward to hearing it again.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 217?

Seeing and hearing none, what are the wishes of the committee?

Mr. Chairman, I move to report committee substitute for House Bill 217 version 34-LS 0950/h, as in Houston, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

Is there any objection? Seeing and hearing no objection, committee substitute for House Bill 217, version 34-LS, 0950/h.

Commissioner Hanes is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. Please stay after we adjourn to sign the committee report.

At this time, we have two meetings noticed on the calendar for this Thursday and next Tuesday. However, we may not anticipate or have another committee meeting again unless people really want to meet on Saturday. Some people like that around here. I want to thank all of the committee members and staff. Mary Gwen Kawakami for being here today.

I think I misidentified her earlier in the meeting, but Mary Gwen, thank you for being here. And everyone else, it's been fun. As there is no further business to come before the Senate Transportation Committee today, we are adjourned at 2:46 PM.