Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/19/2003 08:46 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 251(TRA)
"An Act relating to exemption of certain foreign pleasure
craft from the mandatory pilotage requirement and to civil
fines imposed on the owner or operator of a pleasure craft
of foreign registry; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that this legislation would exempt
foreign pleasure craft, measuring 65 feet or less, from the State's
mandatory marine pilotage requirements. In addition, he specified
that foreign pleasure craft measuring 66 feet to 175 feet could
apply for an exemption from the requirement.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, the bill's
sponsor, explained that this legislation would allow for the
imposition of civil fines for violation of the Marine Pilotage Act;
would exempt foreign pleasure craft of 65 feet or less from the
pilotage requirements; would institute an application fee structure
for vessels measuring between 66 and 175 feet applying for an
exemption from the pilotage requirements; would mandate the use of
an Alaskan licensed marine pilot for yachts exceeding 125 feet but
less than 175 feet in overall length on their initial voyage in
State waters; and would establish a process whereby foreign
pleasure craft vessels measuring between 66 feet to 125 feet could
hire a licensed Alaskan agent. In addition, he stated that
provisions are included that specifically address the definition of
"for hire" and "pleasure craft." He stated that this legislation
was prompted by a recommendation from the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee audit (#08-20015-02 November 1, 2002)[copy not
provided].
Senator Taylor asked for clarification that existing law is based
on gross tonnage as opposed to overall vessel length as specified
in this legislation.
Mr. Shattuck concurred that the change "is a shift" from gross
tonnage to overall length "as length is an easier measure to
understand."
Co-Chair Wilken clarified that the version of the bill being
considered by the Committee is SCS CS HB 251(TRA), Version 23-
LS0865\Z.
Senator Taylor understood that a foreign vessel measuring 65 feet
or less would be exempt from the requirement to have a licensed
Alaska marine pilot onboard in Alaskan waters.
Mr. Shattuck concurred.
Senator Taylor asked for details pertaining to the vessel pilotage
waiver application for vessels exceeding 65 feet.
Mr. Shattuck explained that vessels exceeding 65 feet but measuring
less than 125 feet in overall length could apply for a waiver to be
exempted from the marine pilot requirement. He specified that were
an exemption granted, the vessel would be required to hire an
Alaskan licensed agent to provide information as determined by the
Board of Marine Pilots. He continued that, in addition to acquiring
a waiver and hiring an agent, vessels exceeding 125 feet but being
less than 175 feet in overall length would be required to hire an
Alaskan licensed marine pilot to initially enter Alaskan waters.
Senator Hoffman asked for an explanation regarding the inclusion of
language in Sec. 4, on page 3, lines 17 - 21. This language reads
as follows.
The exemption must remain on the vessel while the vessel is in
state water. An exemption issued under this subsection does
not exempt a vessel for the requirement to employ a pilot
licensed under this chapter while the vessel is in Wrangell
Narrows or in the water between Chatham Strait and Sitka via
Peril Strait.
Mr. Shattuck replied that these areas have been identified as areas
wherein a marine pilot would still be required, regardless of any
provisions that might be implemented in the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken clarified that vessels larger than 65 feet would be
required to hire a Marine pilot to transverse those specific areas.
Mr. Shattuck concurred.
Senator B. Stevens stated that, were this legislation adopted,
transitional language would be necessary to provide vessels
sufficient time to apply for the waiver this year. He specified
that an amendment would be required to address the timeline as
specified in Section 4 on page 3, lines 7 through 12 that reads as
follows.
The application for an exemption must be submitted to the
board at least 30 days before the vessel enters the state. The
Board shall approve or deny an application for the exemption
within 10 working days after the application is received by
the Board.
Mr. Shattuck stated that he must confer with the bill's sponsor
before he could not comment on an amendment. However, he
acknowledged Senator B. Stevens' concern that implementation might
be problematic this year.
Senator Taylor asked how existing law would be affected were the
effective date of the legislation postponed.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that existing law specifies that
vessels exceeding 300 gross tons, or approximately 65 feet, would
be required to have a marine pilot onboard while in Alaskan waters.
Senator Taylor understood that a pilot would be required until this
legislation went into affect.
Senator B. Stevens argued that, were transitional language not
provided in this legislation, vessels would be required to abide by
status quo regulations for the entire summer season of 2003.
Senator Taylor asked the entities that would be affected by this
legislation.
Senator B. Stevens stated that in addition to large yachts, vessel
provision suppliers would be affected.
Senator Taylor declared that pilots are required on vessels to
ensure that vessel transit is safe. He assumed that the majority of
these vessels are private pleasure craft and are not for hire, and
therefore, he questioned the necessity of this legislation, as he
noted, separate legislation has been adopted that exempts private
vessels from liability for its passengers. He asserted therefore,
that this legislation is not necessary.
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the United States Coast Guard's
(USCG) position on this legislation.
Mr. Shattuck stated that currently the USCG is issuing "no opinion"
regarding this legislation.
Co-Chair Wilken mentioned that the legislation is modeled after
current State of Washington regulations.
Mr. Shattuck concurred, although he mentioned that one difference
is that the State of Washington has a traffic control system in
place in the Puget Sound area, whereas, none are currently
specified for Alaskan waterways. He continued that an area of
concern that has been discussed but is not addressed in the
legislation is how the State would monitor vessel location and
determine the number of vessels that might be in State waters. He
stated that estimates in the legislation regarding the number of
vessels that might transit Alaskan waters are based on vessel
numbers in the State of Washington as well as on inquiries from
vessels that the State has received.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for further information regarding the
requirement that a vessel measuring between 65 feet and 125 feet or
175 feet must have a marine pilot on board from its entry into
Alaskan waters to its first port of call.
Mr. Shattuck clarified that vessels ranging from 65 feet to 125
feet in overall length must hire an Alaskan agent to arrange the
particulars of their trip and that a vessel measuring 126 feet to
175 feet must hire a marine pilot.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the marine pilotage requirement for vessels
ranging from 65 feet to 125 feet.
Mr. Shattuck responded that rather than being required to hire a
marine pilot, those vessels would be required to hire an Alaskan
agent who would arrange for obtaining their waiver and would
provide the vessel with information established for entry into
Alaskan waters.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the agent would be retained until the
vessel's first port of call.
Mr. Shattuck clarified that the agent would be retained for the
vessel's complete journey.
Amendment #1: This amendment inserts a new section into the bill on
page 4, line 11 as follows.
The requirement in AS 08.62.180(b), enacted in Section 4 of
this Act, that an application for exemption be filed at least
30 days before the vessel enters the state does not apply to a
vessel entering the state less than 30 days after the
effective date of this Act.
Senator B. Stevens moved to adopt Amendment #1. He stated that this
transitional language would be identified as Section 5.
Co-Chair Wilken objected for discussion.
Senator B. Stevens explained that, were this legislation adopted,
this language would provide a 30-day transition period to allow
vessels that are traveling to or in Alaska for the summer season to
apply for the waiver.
Co-Chair Wilken expressed that this amendment would be limited to
the initial stage of the legislation.
Senator B. Stevens concurred. He reminded the Committee that the
original marine pilotage legislation was enacted numerous years
earlier to specifically require a marine pilot to be onboard the
Greenpeace vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, during its transit in
Alaskan waters. He noted that in response to the increase in large,
private yacht traffic in the State, this legislation is an attempt
to update the original requirements. He stated that this is a good
"compromise" to address the concerns of the pilots, the USCG, and
other affected parties. He urged members to support his amendment.
Senator Taylor asked whether the amendment would require vessels to
abide by existing regulations or would exempt vessels from all
requirements during the 30-day transition period.
KATE TESAR, Representative, Alaska Yacht Services and Provisioning,
commented that the amendment would allow those vessels in transit
at the time the legislation takes effect to be exempt from the 30-
day prior-to-trip waiver application requirement. She stated that
the inclusion of language in the bill that specifies that vessels
transiting certain waterways, such as the Wrangell Narrows, must
have a licensed marine pilot onboard, addresses marine pilots'
concerns regarding the easing of pilotage requirements.
Mr. Shattuck opined that the amendment would address the concern
regarding the effective date of the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Green asked whether the committee substitute being
considered would reduce the revenue estimates in the Department of
Revenue's accompanying fiscal note.
Mr. Shattuck responded that the Department's revenue estimation
would not be significantly impacted because the exact number of
vessels that would be affected by this legislation is unknown. He
communicated that more reliable numbers would be provided following
the bill's first year of enactment.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that numerous communities have expressed an
interest in this legislation. He stated that, provided the outcome
of this legislation proves to be safe and environmentally sound, it
would be interesting to receive feedback from communities as to
whether this legislation provided a benefit to them as opposed to
the State "taking this risk with no benefit." Additionally, he
noted that ship provisioners should benefit from the legislation.
He encouraged the bill's sponsor to develop methodology to monitor
the outcome of the legislation.
Mr. Shattuck communicated that Representative Dahlstrom has
expressed an interest in developing methodology to study the
affects of the legislation. He attested that a major goal of this
legislation would be to provide economic benefits to communities in
Southeast Alaska.
Senator Taylor moved to report the bill, as amended, from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 251(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with a new zero fiscal note, dated May 19, 2003 from the
Department of Community and Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|