Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/17/2003 11:16 AM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 251-MARINE PILOT FOR FOREIGN PLEASURE CRAFT
CHAIR JOHN COWDERY asked for a motion to adopt the Senate
committee substitute (CS) as the working document.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER made a motion to adopt SCS CSHB 251 \C
version as the working document. The motion carried with no
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, bill sponsor, described HB 251
as an effort to correct a problem in the marine pilotage
requirements identified in a recent legislative budget and audit
report. They recommend the Board of Marine Pilots seek statutory
authority to allow the discretion to grant waivers of pilotage
requirements for large pleasure craft.
She pointed out the letters of support in the packets and opined
the legislation would promote economic development in Southeast
Alaska coastal communities.
She provided the following sectional overview:
· Section 1 - Imposes a $10,000 civil fine for violation of
the pilotage laws.
· Section 2 - Outlines the fee structure for a waiver
application.
· Section 3 Exempts foreign flagged pleasure craft of 65 feet
or less from pilotage laws.
· Section 4 - Adds new subsections:
(b) Outlines exemptions for foreign flagged pleasure
craft over 65 feet and less than 175 feet
exclusive of the waters of the Wrangell Narrows
and the water between Chatham Strait and Sitka
via Peril Strait
(c) Adds the use of a licensed Alaska agent for yachts
over 65 feet and less than 125 feet in length.
(d) Mandates use of pilots on foreign flagged pleasure
craft of more than 125 feet and less than 175
feet in length at the first pilot station into
the first port of call.
(e) Defines "for hire" and "pleasure craft" according
to the U.S. Coast Guard definitions.
11:35 a.m.
CHAIR COWDERY asked whether she would consider a friendly
amendment on page 3, line 8 changing "10 working days" to "30
working days".
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed.
CHAIR COWDERY asked for a motion to amend.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER made a motion to amend.
CHAIR COWDERY asked whether there were any questions.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN pointed out that it would be
necessary to change "10" to "30" on line 9 as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked her staff to provide further
explanation on subsection (b).
REX SHATTUCK, staff to Representative Dahlstrom, explained there
are probably two issues that should be addressed. The time for
scheduling marine pilots might need advance notice and the time
to work on the waiver might need additional time. He suggested
addressing the need for more scheduling time by inserting, "The
application for a waiver must be submitted to the board at least
30 days before the vessel enters the state."
CHAIR COWDERY said that would accomplish what he intended. He
then questioned whether the 10 day approval period was adequate.
MR. SHATTUCK replied the intent is to give 10 days processing
time, but the 10 day period for action would be suspended if
additional information were needed from the applicant.
CHAIR COWDERY asked if the others would stay at 10. [References
to 10 days on page 3, lines 9 and 11]
MR. SHATTUCK replied the 30 day time for scheduling would be a
separate statement and application processing time could be
either 10 days or 30 days. Occupational licensing indicated the
10 day period for application processing was acceptable and the
Marine Pilots Association has indicated that the 30 day notice
would be suitable for their scheduling. "So leaving the existing
10 day period for approval of the waiver appeared to be okay as
far as occupational licensing goes, whereas 30 days in advance
for the scheduling. I would submit that 30 days for the
processing of the waiver would be acceptable, I'm sure, to
occupational licensing too."
SENATOR LINCOLN noted there is reference to a 10 day limit on
line 11 as well. She then requested a written copy of the
proposed amendment.
MR. SHATTUCK said he recently learned that not giving the marine
pilots 30 days scheduling notice could be problematic. The
language he suggested came from a previous version of the
legislation and, although he didn't have copies to distribute,
he would provide them in short order.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she would appreciate a copy. Assuming the
proposed amendment is inserted, she asked whether he was saying
the three references to 10 days [page 3, lines 8, 9 and 11] had
to be changed or did not have to be changed.
MR. SHATTUCK explained 30 days is critical for marine pilot
scheduling and waiver processing could be either 10 or 30 days.
CHAIR COWDERY said he understood there to be three separate
issues. He asked Mr. Shattuck to explain.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she simply wanted clarification of the
numbers.
MR. SHATTUCK said a way of dealing with the time might be to
have an application requirement of 30 days prior to the vessel
entering the state to cover marine pilot scheduling. As a
separate issue, it would be appropriate that the time periods on
lines 8, 9 and 11 be the same.
SENATOR WAGONER said the dates on lines 8 and 9 are integral and
therefore must be the same.
MR. SHATTUCK said the ten day processing time would be
acceptable and so the other two dates would have to be 10 as
well. Thirty days for scheduling purposes would help the marine
pilots.
CHAIR COWDERY asked whether the amendment for 30 days on line 8
and leaving 10 days on line 9 was acceptable and a reasonable
time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that was correct.
SENATOR WAGONER said he must not understand what he was reading
because the 10 working days referred to on line 8 was the same
10 working days referred to on line 9. Changing one would
automatically require a change of the other.
CHAIR COWDERY asked Senator Lincoln if she wanted to add to that
statement or wait for a response from the sponsor.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the amendment would add a separate section
to accommodate the marine pilots 30 day scheduling requirement.
She made it clear she was not making a motion before she read
the language Mr. Shattuck proposed. It said, "An application for
the exemption shall be submitted to the marine pilot coordinator
at least 30 days before the vessel enters the compulsory
pilotage water of the state." She continued to explain; after
that language is inserted, the three references to 10 days on
page 3 lines 8, 9 and 11 would remain the same.
SENATOR WAGONER agreed that made sense; they all have to be the
same.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "They don't."
SENATOR WAGONER disagreed and restated his position saying,
"This amendment will make a difference, but right now, without
the amendment, they have to be the same."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked the Chair if he was withdrawing his
motion.
CHAIR COWDERY said he withdrew his request to amend, which was
to change "10" days to "30" days on page 3, line 8.
SENATOR LINCOLN made a motion to amend. On page 3, line 7 after
"is issued." insert, "An application for the exemption shall be
submitted to the marine pilot coordinator at least 30 days
before the vessel enters the compulsory pilotage water of the
state."
CHAIR COWDERY said, "That would go down, starting on line 7 at
'The board' ending on line 12 at 'applicant.' We'd replace that
with the language you're talking about."
SENATOR LINCOLN clarified she was proposing to insert the
language after the word "issued." and it's a new sentence. It
would replace nothing.
MR. SHATTUCK read (b) with the inserted language to clarify.
CHAIR COWDERY asked if the language was satisfactory and whether
everyone understood.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed to the amendment.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked for an at-ease.
11:37 a.m.
CHAIR COWDERY called an at-ease.
11:43 a.m.
CHAIR COWDERY reconvened the meeting.
There was no objection to amendment #1 and the motion passed.
CHAIR COWDERY asked if anyone wanted to testify on the bill.
ROBERT WINTER from the Southeast Alaska Pilots Association
testified in support of the current committee substitute for HB
251, but advised that some members had reservations about the
175 foot exemption limit. He explained the focus is to ensure
safety on the waterways.
CHAIR COWDERY asked for confirmation that the bill addresses
foreign flagged vessels only.
MR. WINTER confirmed.
CHAIR COWDERY asked how many pilots would be required for a
vessel that stays in Alaska waters for a week.
MR. WINTER replied just one pilot is typically sent to a yacht
because most yachts don't run for more than eight hours at a
time. He pointed out that cruise ships have two pilots on board
if they run more than eight hours so different schedules are
accommodated.
CHAIR COWDERY asked how Alaska waters is defined.
MR. WINTER explained that for pilotage purposes, Alaska waters
are located inside the headlands.
CHAIR COWDERY asked who transports the pilots.
MR. WINTER said in Southeast a pilot boat typically takes a
pilot to a yacht, but a charter floatplane might sometimes
provide transportation.
CHAIR COWDERY asked who pays for the transportation.
MR. WINTER replied the owner of the yacht pays, which is the
same as for cargo and ore ships that require pilots.
SENATOR WAGONER asked about boats for hire.
MR. WINTER explained the intent of this bill is to address
pleasure craft and not vessels that carry passengers or freight
for hire.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Winter to be more specific about any
safety concerns pilots may have as related to this legislation.
MR. WINTER said present statute allows vessels up to 300 gross
ton, which would be about 125 feet in length. Vessels that are
175 feet long may range from 600 gross tons up to 1,500 gross
tons, which is a small ship. In the past these vessels have been
entering Alaska waters without a pilot and the state hasn't
enforced the pilot requirement. He continued, "Under the present
statute, we would be exempting some of those, but there is a
requirement for them to take a pilot on initial entry where the
pilot would provide them with navigational safety information."
This information would include fishing openings, cruise ship
schedules and other pertinent information they aren't
necessarily getting so this bill might increase safety.
SENATOR WAGONER brought up the issue of homeland security and
asked if there was any concern associated with foreign flag
vessels.
MR. WINTER said that is a federal or Coast Guard concern and
this bill isn't a big issue to them. They are already tracking
vessels of special interest.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the fiscal note from occupational
licensing showing revenues of $102,000 and asked how much of the
new revenue would come from civil fines and who would impose the
fine.
MR. WINTER said the way the law stands currently, those fines
are criminal in nature and substantial at $15,000 for the first
infraction. Changing the infraction to be civil in nature would
make it possible for the board to deal with the fines. Also,
length is a more definitive factor than gross tonnage for
identifying the vessels that would require a pilot. Because
foreign yachts are required to give 96 hours notice before
entering U.S. waters, the Coast Guard or U.S. Customs data could
provide a ready cross check for which vessels would require a
pilot.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how much of the $102,000 in new revenue
might come from civil fines.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said they identified about 25 vessels
in the 65 foot to 175 foot range that will probably visit the
state and used that information to come up with the anticipated
fees. She opined that the revenue generated would be greater
than projected.
MR. WINTER said he understood the revenue would come from the
projected waiver fees. If the system works there wouldn't be any
fines.
CHAIR COWDERY asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR WAGONER asked that the record reflect that the committee
substitute \C version was adopted as the working document. The
first motion to amend the committee substitute was withdrawn and
Senator Lincoln's amendment #1 was inserted into (b) on page 3;
it did not remove or substitute language in (b).
SENATOR WAGONER made a motion to move SCS CSHB 251(TRA) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|