CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA) "An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts." 10:37:03 AM SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, SPONSOR, explained the legislation. He stated that he bill would bring in $200,000 in federal funds to help people afford the booster seats that are necessary under law. He said that the current statute was in need of articulation. The bill breaks the statute into five parts. He referred to a handout with pictures explaining the different sections of the bill. Section 1 applies to children under one year; Section 2 applies to children one year to four years. Section 3 applies to children over four years, but under eight years. Section 4 applies to children who exceed the height/weight requirements in Section 3, and Section 5 is a catch-all provision, which allows the driver to determine whether a booster seat or a car seat should be used. 10:39:39 AM Co-Chair Stoltze opened public testimony. RONNIE SULLIVAN, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDER testified via teleconference, spoke in support of the legislation. She felt that the bill would reduce confusion when deciding the best type of safety seat for a child. JANE FELLMAN, COORDINATOR, SAFE KIDS, KENAI testified via teleconference, testified in support of the bill. She emphasized the importance of the safety of children in cars. She described the level of protection provided by boosters and car seats. She relayed a story of children who did not fit in the seat belts and who needed bolsters. She stated the need for both education and legislation. 10:44:54 AM JOHN COOK, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION testified via teleconference, urged passage of the legislation. He felt that the current law was vague and outdated and did not address the needs of children four to eight years of age. He stated that many states have updated child restraint laws. He described broad-based support for the legislation. MARGARET HAYASHI, EMERGENCY AND CRITICAL CARE NURSE, testified via teleconference, spoke in support of the bill. She stressed that current law was outdated. She stated that two children in her community had died in the past year because they had not been properly restrained. 10:49:26 AM JANICE TOWER, ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, testified via teleconference, testified in support of the legislation. Alaska's pediatricians are willing to educate citizens regarding the issue. She urged timely passage to receive the federal funds. GORDON GLASER, CARSEAT TASKFORCE AND INJURY PREVENTION, testified via teleconference, urged committee support for the legislation. He shared that the single leading cause of death and the second leading cause of hospitalization of children four to eight years old is motor vehicle accidents. None of the children who were hospitalized were properly restrained in booster seats. 10:53:20 AM TIM LAMKIN, CONCERNED PARENT, spoke in opposition of the legislation. He felt that the bill was of being poorly written and was not good policy. He explained Anton's Law, which established improved safety ratings for manufacturers, and improved law enforcement of safety seat laws. He felt that it was important that no loopholes could be found in the legislation. He expressed confusion for the purpose of booster seats for eight year old children over 80 lbs. He felt that there could be situation where children over the required booster age limit, but under the weight requirement, would be expected to sit in a booster seat. He stressed that he supported the intent of the bill in keeping children safe, but felt that it was a poorly written policy. 11:00:01 AM Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony. Representative Kelly asked why the provision could not be simplified. Senator French stated that the intent was to work with experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to adopt language that clearly expressed intent. He furthered that Section 5 is in the bill for a reason, to protect young people up to age 16. Dropping the section, without a major re-write of the bill, would make the bill unclear. 11:03:56 AM Representative Kelly asked why the height requirement was insufficient. He wondered about the last line on page 2, "determined solely by the driver". Mr. French no objection to clarifying the language on page 2. He emphasized that the bill saves lives and raises money. He said that the experts think that the weight requirements should be on statute. Representative Kelly asked if federal dollars would be lost if the weight requirement was removed from the bill. Mr. French replied yes. Representative Kelly clarified that the weight limit was a federal requirement. Mr. French replied in the affirmative. Representative Kelly asked what the weight requirement was. Mr. French answered that it was 65 lbs. 11:06:51 AM Co-Chair Hawker voiced concern about ambiguity in the language in Section 5. He thought that the provision could result in undue fear of police officers for children. Vice-Chair Thomas shared a negative experience with money obtained for a seat belt law in his district. He also expressed concern for 15 year old children, who do not meet the weight requirements, but do meet the height requirements, being expected to ride in booster seats. He thought they would be unduly stigmatized. 11:12:08 AM Senator French said that the example would fall under Section 5. Representative Fairclough requested confirmation that the 65 lb limit would comply with federal law. MARY SIROKY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that that was her understanding. Representative Fairclough asked if the sponsor was in opposition to the amendment that would change the weight requirement from 80 to 65. Senator French replied no. Representative Fairclough asked if there was a choice between the height and weight requirements. Ms. Siroky replied that the height and weight requirements must be included in statute in order to receive the federal funds. 11:15:11 AM Representative Kelly asked if Section 5 gave parents control in determining the use of child restraints for children over eight and under 16 years of age. Ms. Siroky replied that that was correct. Representative Kelly requested further clarification. Ms. Siroky thought that federal height and weight requirements must be met. 11:16:51 AM Representative Kelly asked if the language stated, "height and weight" or "height or weight". Mr. Lamkin interpreted that the requirement was for children to be over 65 lbs or over 4' 9". Representative Fairclough queried the document Mr. Lamkin was reading information from. Mr. Lamkin replied that it was the grant requirement under federal law. Representative Fairclough pointed out that a grant requirement is different from federal law. She wondered if a federal code could be cited. Mr. Lamkin said that according to Anton's Law, there is no federal height or weight requirement. 11:19:58 AM GORDON GLASER testified via teleconference, reported that the language states that both height and weight requirements must be met, under Anton's Law, in order to meet federal funding requirements. Representative Austerman asked if the testifier was an attorney. Mr. Glaser said he was not. 11:22:00 AM Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1: Page 2, Line 11: Delete: "80" Insert: "65" Co-Chair Stoltze objected for discussion. Co-Chair Stoltze withdrew his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 11:23:04 AM Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED Amendment 2: Page 2, Lines 18-23 Delete all material Co-Chair Stoltze objected for discussion. Representative Gara thought that Lines 18 through 23 clarified the language of the bill. 11:24:09 AM Senator French reported that the same amendment was voted down in another committee. He explained that the amendment has legal drafting problems. 11:25:43 AM Co-Chair Hawker commented that deleting the lines would resolve the intent of the amendment. Representative Kelly suggested a legal opinion from the Department of Law. 11:26:36 AM Representative Gara asked the committee to consider moving the bill out of committee and resolving the semantic matter on the Floor. Representative Gara maintained a continued OBJECTION to Amendment 2. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment 2. IN FAVOR: Thomas, Hawker OPPOSED: Gara, Kelly, Austerman, Crawford, Salmon, Stoltze, Fairclough Representative Foster and Representative Joule were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (7-2). 11:29:57 AM Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 3: Page 2, Line 23: In between "determined" and "by" Insert: "solely" There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 11:30:17 AM Representative Fairclough pointed out the continued argument between "and" and "or", in the height and weight requirement language of the bill. Vice-Chair Thomas revisited his comment concerning the money that had been theoretically going to his district for mandatory seatbelts laws. He expressed frustration with the negative impact of not receiving those funds. He felt that if the bill would force families in rural areas to but boosters for their children, the state should help finance the booster seats. Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the fiscal notes. 11:32:41 AM Representative Gara MOVED to report HCS CSSB 72(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 72(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with no recommendation and attached zero note 1 by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 11:33:08 AM RECESSED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR 10:15:37 PM RECONVENED