Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 01:27 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 108, "An
Act relating to the use, operation, and regulation of boats;
establishing a uniform state waterway marking system; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Bill Hudson, sponsor of the
bill.
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, announced
that there is a committee substitute that needs to be adopted for
discussional purposes.
Number 1028
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for HB 108, 1-LS0445\N, Ford, 4/6/99, as a working
document. There being no objection, it was so moved.
Number 1048
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated HB 108 would establish a comprehensive
boating safety program in Alaska. He has wanted the state for the
last six years to adopt its own boating safety program. Part of
the reason for the deaths is because the state does not have any
concerted effort to try to educate and develop a program to provide
for the safe operation of small boats in the state. Alaska is the
only state that doesn't have such a program. The bill would
transfer the responsibilities and regulatory authority over boat
safety equipment and other requirements from the United States
Coast Guard to the state of Alaska. The state would assume vessel
registration. It would be done by the Division of Motor Vehicles
[Department of Administration] using their current registration
systems. The bill would also authorize boat dealers to register
boats at the point-of-sale for convenience. The bill would also
mandate that boats in state waters be equipped with the
requirements currently required by the coast guard. The coast
guard has been in the lifesaving business for hundreds of years and
it has determined that there is a minimal set of equipment for
various kinds of boats that are most likely to prevent the loss of
life and the boat. He cited fire extinguishers, personal flotation
devices or life jackets, sound producing devices, backfire flame
protectors, ventilation, and visual distress signals as examples.
The bill would expand the current coast guard requirement to carry
those types of safety equipment on all waters within the state
adding some small streams and lakes that are not currently covered
by the coast guard. Even though there aren't that many, deaths do
occur in those waters. In addition, because the state does not
have its own safety program that complies with the federal Safe
Boating Act of 1971, the state is losing its share of the federal
marine fuel taxes that the people are paying. Currently, about
$500,000 is being collected and sent outside. By initiating a
safety program, that money would stay in the state along with about
$600,000 in program receipts annually. The goal is to concentrate
on boating safety education. The charges would be identical to
those required and assessed by the coast guard.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that Charles Hosack from the Division of
Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] and Robert Nauheim
from the Department of Law are available for technical or legal
questions.
Number 1421
JIM STRATTON, Director, Central Office, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He declared that the department
supports the bill and the committee substitute.
Number 1449
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton whether he is responsible for
publishing the booklet entitled, "Alaska Boater's Handbook".
MR. STRATTON replied yes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how often is it published.
MR. STRATTON replied it has been published once.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how often he anticipates it will
be published.
MR. STRATTON replied the goal is to publish it once a year to allow
for updates. The goal is to also give it away for free.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how much did it cost to publish it
and how many were published.
MR. STRATTON replied about 42,000 were published. It cost less
than 50 cents each. In total, it cost about $20,000 to $21,000.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to a booklet entitled, "Boating
Safety Dollars at Work", and noted that there isn't a section on
Alaska. She asked Mr. Stratton whether it's correct to say that
none of the money came from federal dollars.
MR. STRATTON replied that is correct. Alaska does not have a
federally recognized boating safety program, therefore, it doesn't
have any federal dollars to put into it. The money came from the
state budget.
Number 1554
MIKE FOLKERTS, Member, Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He declared his
support of the bill.
Number 1579
JEFFERY JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
has been working with the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
for 18 years. He has been a coastal field park ranger and has seen
his share of tragedies. In 1997, almost one-third of the
fatalities in the state were in or adjacent to state park units.
He also has a great deal of personal interest in boating safety.
Number 1618
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Coordinator, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District, United States Coast Guard, Department of Defense,
testified in Juneau. The responsibility and opportunity for the
states to manage their own boating safety program was first passed
to them in 1958. The mechanism to fund those programs was passed
in 1971 with the federal Boating Safety Act. It formed the
mechanism that takes the boating fuel tax monies and distributes
them to the states. The monies from Alaska get distributed to all
the other states. All the other states and territories have
implemented boating safety programs, except for Alaska. The last
state to take a program on was New Hampshire in 1988. The program
started out with a $35 million appropriation from the federal
treasury through the Highway Trust Fund as an annual appropriation.
It is now at $55 million as a permanent appropriation. For fiscal
year 1999 through 2003 $59 million through $71 million have been
appropriated. The monies have been steadily increasing due in part
to an organization called the National Association of State Boating
Law Administrators, a coalition that fights for boating laws. In
response to why Alaska should do this, 50 percent of the fatalities
that happen in the state are in areas where there is no coast guard
presence; 30 percent of the fatalities happen on non-navigable
waterways where the coast guard absolutely doesn't have a presence,
and where there are not any safety equipment requirements. Between
1989 and 1998, 266 Alaskans lost their lives in noncommercial
boating accidents compared to 225 commercial fatalities. The
program works. In 1971, there were 29 fatalities per 100,000 boats
nationally. Now, there are under seven. Alaska is not following
that trend, however. On behalf of the admiral, she expressed the
coast guard's support of the state taking on such a program. How
that is done is up to the legislature, however. In response to the
non-motorized registration issue, the coast guard does not have a
formal position on that. It would provide more funding for the
state match. The coast guard requires registration of vessels
equipped with motorized propulsion, although 30 percent of the
fatalities are in non-motorized vessels. It is important to
include some type of minimum length requirement to exclude all the
Fred Meyer and K-Mart rafts. The state right now already meets the
match requirements in good faith because it is working towards a
program. The Governor established an office of boating safety in
July within the Department of Natural Resources. She noted it is
a reimbursement program. The money is trickled in as the office
spends money that which matches the requirements. In response to
the boating safety council issue, it is not part of the federal
requirements. The federal requirements are a lead agency, some
kind of law enforcement, and education. The state already has
those requirements. The state would have to take on mirroring the
safety equipment requirements, registering boats, and reporting of
accidents. The council has been asked for by the voters, and
several states have a council of some kind. She suggested limiting
the number of meetings, for example, otherwise it can provide
valuable user input.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she has had a lot of contact regarding
the inclusion of non-motorized vessels. She asked Ms. Hargis, if
the length was increased from 10 feet to 20 feet in terms of
registration, would that take them out of the safety portion of the
program as well.
MS. HARGIS replied that would essentially exclude almost all
non-motorized vessels from registration, but not from the safety
requirements. She reiterated one-third of the fatalities are due
to non-motorized crafts.
Number 1961
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis whether there is about
$600,000 now in program receipts through licensing fees.
MS. HARGIS replied, right, through boat registration revenues.
Right now, those revenues are paid to the coast guard which in turn
hands them off to the federal treasury. The coast guard here in
Alaska doesn't even get to keep them. The state would see roughly
that $600,000 and another $500,000 from the Boating Safety Federal
Grant Fund.
Number 1993
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis how much it would cost if the
state wanted to keep the same level of safety efforts as the coast
guard. In other words, is the money that the state would receive
enough to run a program?
MS. HARGIS replied the state would get roughly $1 million to run a
boating safety program which is a lot of money. Right now, the
state doesn't get any money to run one. The coast guard is not
stepping back, except that it would not be registering boats
anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis whether that includes
monitoring as well.
MS. HARGIS replied that money would also go to law enforcement, but
right now the bill says that 75 percent would go to education.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered what level of effort the state would
have to step up.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the state would take over registering
boats, currently managed by the coast guard, would undertake a
statewide boating safety education commitment, and would manage the
program to ensure that all crafts in the state meet the
requirements and are registered.
Number 2086
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis how much it costs to run a
registration program.
MS. HARGIS replied the estimate from the Division of Motor Vehicles
[Department of Administration] is roughly $300,000. It would be a
cost-positive situation. The state's efforts for education and law
enforcement currently pass the coast guard's test. The state also
has a designated lead agency. There are no more requirements that
the state would have to take on to get funding. The coast guards
is hoping the money would be spent on education. It is part of the
match to get the federal dollars rolling towards the state.
Number 2134
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that there would be a net gain of about
$600,000 for new programs and enhancement of the public's
awareness.
Number 2144
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned whether those funds would come from
a different source.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied there would be a new source of funds
to pay for many of the things that the state currently does.
Number 2165
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the non-motorized
registration fee was reduced to $10 for three years from $24.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes as a direct response and
recognition of the non-motorized kyakers out of Seward and
Anchorage. They were concerned about paying the same amount as
those who have big boats.
Number 2235
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health and Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services, testified in Juneau. The department supports the
bill. Drowning is a public health problem. A combination of
safety organizations and federal laws have significantly decreased
the deaths for commercial fishing. There have also been some
efforts from Native organizations that have impacted boating safety
as well. The department believes that by bringing these additional
funds into the state for safety purposes those trends will
continue. Unfortunately, there haven't been similar trends in the
recreational categories. In addition, the department monitors
costs associated with near drownings, for example, and other types
of injuries. He noted that rescues are very expensive and to the
extend that legislation like this can help prevent those types of
things is a savings.
Number 2366
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 4, line 20, of the bill, and asked
why the reporting requirements have been increased from $100 to
$500.
MS. HARGIS said $500 is the federal reporting requirement. Alaska
was well below that requirement at $100.
Number 2421
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hargis whether it is part of the reporting
triad she mentioned earlier or could the state deal with it at the
$100 level.
MS. HARGIS replied the state could do it at the $100 level. It
would mean that the state would have a more stringent requirement
than the coast guard. It is up to the state to decide, however.
CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned whether the state could go to a less
strict requirement of $1,000, for example.
TAPE 99-23, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hargis whether there is a penalty for not
reporting an accident.
MS. HARGIS replied there is a penalty section in the bill [page 9,
line 4]. It is a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the bill would require the courts
to establish a bail schedule.
Number 0070
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Juanita Hensley [Administrator, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration] whether a class A
misdemeanor is consistent with penalties for the failure to report
vehicular accidents.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the penalty is restricted to $500.
The bill reads, "...and may be fined up to $500."
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the bill says the penalty for everything,
except that which is contained in (b) [Section 11], would be up to
$1,000 plus 6 to 12 months in jail. He is trying to draw some
comparisons between the requirements for excess damage to an
automobile in excess of $500 and what the bill would do.
Number 0119
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Director's Office, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, noted that if a
person fails to file a report and is charged for the failure to
file a report through the district attorney's office it is a class
A misdemeanor. The division doesn't pursue someone for the failure
to report an accident, however.
Number 0146
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hensley whether a person needs to file an
accident report if there is $8,000 worth of damage, for example,
and is that person subject to...
MS. HENSLEY responded it is a requirement for a person to file an
accident report. The police will report an accident, if it is
police investigated and there is more than $500 worth of damage.
If two people are involved in an accident that didn't involve the
police, the division doesn't have any way of knowing about it,
unless one of the parties files a report. They may file an
insurance claim or choose to settle it on their own.
Number 0205
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hensley, if there is no injury between two
parties and one party sends in a report, what would happen to the
other party.
MS. HENSLEY replied there is only a requirement for one of the
parties to file an accident report. The division uses the report
that is filed to make a determination of who is liable. A notice
is sent to both parties for proof of insurance, and if they are not
insured they lose their drivers' license.
Number 0242
CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned whether there are two reports that have to
be submitted: proof of insurance and a regular accident/crash
report.
MS. HENSLEY noted that in many cases both parties file their own
reports. If there is conflicting information, the courts make a
decision.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted both parties probably file a report for
insurances purposes.
Number 0275
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether or not registering a boat
would be a misdemeanor. It looks like the exceptions in (b)
[Section 11] exclude boat registration.
Number 0300
MS. HENSLEY said the failure to register a boat would be a class A
misdemeanor under this section. She noted that AS 05.25.010 is
safety requirements, AS 05.25.020 is the use of boats with water
skis and surfboards, and AS 05.25.060 is prohibited operations,
which are included in the exceptions in (b).
Number 0328
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that AS 05.25.060 (2) and (3) are
violations while the failure to register a boat is a misdemeanor.
He likes the distinction, but it seems that the failure to register
a boat is more like a violation.
MS. HENSLEY commented that is probably patterned after Title 28,
failure to register a car, which is a class A misdemeanor. She
noted that the failure to register a snowmobile is a violation.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, by including kyaks, it becomes a
question of how much should the state wax for the failure to
register a kyak.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said these are good points that need to be
discussed with the drafter of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said it seems that reckless endangerment and
things of that nature ought to be a higher penalty than the failure
to register a boat.
Number 0401
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the establishment of the Alaska Boating
Safety Council and said it seems that is heading in the wrong
direction of establishing another bureaucracy. He asked whether it
is essential; and, if it is, may be some of its responsibilities
should be detailed.
Number 0424
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied this bill has been discussed with
boating organizations and associations which have expressed concern
of conferring too much power to the commissioner of the Department
of Natural Resources and the director of the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation absent some type of user involvement. The way
it is crafted now is considerate of both the department and users.
It sets up the appointed members to the council and no money would
be given other than travel and per diem expenses. He said the
legislature might want to specify or limit its meeting frequency or
limit its activity. He reiterated, if the bill passes, all of the
expenses for this operation would be paid for with the fees that
the state would receive. It wouldn't require new general fund
monies. The council would be a guiding force of reaching the
public for education.
Number 0525
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Hudson whether there was any
discussion on how many times a year it should meet.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied it was discussed and, in general,
most felt that twice a year was good. He suspects that the council
would be involved in working on the boating safety pamphlet and
education proposals.
Number 0574
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 5, "Owner's civil liability." He
asked where does the liability stop when the owner of a boat rents
his boat to another person, for example.
Number 0599
ROBERT NAUHEIM, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. As far as he can see from the text,
there are only housekeeping changes in Section 5. It doesn't seem
to substantively change operator liability.
Number 0656
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony and asked
Representative Hudson to incorporate the changes discussed today,
especially the issue brought up by Representative Kerttula.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Chairman Kott whether he wants him to
look at a meeting-frequency on the council's activity to be put in
statute, or under the aegis of the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he wants to see it in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Chairman Kott whether two meetings
sound reasonable.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied may be it should say a minimum of two, or a
maximum of four, or quarterly as necessary based on the general
theme of those in the boating safety industry.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, in conclusion, that he has built a very
good network so far. It is a balanced network between the
motorized and non-motorized boats. In all of the years that he has
been involved in boating safety, the area of damage was in the
non-motorized areas, such as kyakers. They begin to believe that
they are one with the water. He thinks it is good to have an
equitable sharing of the cost that needs to be recovered. So far,
none of the testimony has indicated a problem with the reduced fare
for the non-motorized boats. They are eager to get involved with
the safety aspects of the bill, and they have said that small
details should not kill the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill will be held over for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|