Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
03/19/2009 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB72 | |
| HB132 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 72-CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS 1:14:00 PM CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 72, "An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts." 1:14:27 PM SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, stated that SB 72 was previously heard by the committee. He offered to answer any questions about the bill. 1:15:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that SB 72 would change the positioning of the seat to face the rear of the vehicle. SENATOR FRENCH answered no. He explained the object of the bill is to fill the gap in Alaska's statutes since the state is "not in line" with FHWA regulations. He stated that the Alaska statutes do not address children who outgrow the child safety car seat, but are not old enough to use the seatbelt. He related that the interim device is not currently covered under Alaska law, but is the "booster seat" that lifts the child off the seat and places the child's shoulder strap where it belongs. 1:16:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that the language reads "rear- facing" and she inquired as to whether that is currently allowable. SENATOR FRENCH referred to page 1 line 8 to 10, and stated that rear-facing is not new, but makes explicit what is currently in practice. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification whether current law calls for front-facing or rear-facing seats. He offered her belief that most child seats are front-facing seats. She expressed concern and related that parents check in the rearview mirror and can see the child is okay. SENATOR FRENCH said he would defer to the experts. He recalled using rear-facing seats for the first six months of the child's life. 1:17:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked where the idea for the bill came about. SENATOR FRENCH indicated that a constituent and person involved in the topic for the state brought the matter to his attention. 1:18:27 PM CINDY CASHEN, Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO), Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that her office is responsible for taking the federal transportation funds and applying them to data-driven, effective programs that encourage safe driving behavior. She stated that the AHSO currently receives $159,000 per year for occupant protection. However, it is insufficient due to the size of the state and number of communities throughout the state. She related that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides state funding as the federal arm of DOT&PF. The NHTSA supports enactment of stronger child passenger safety laws that cover every child, in every seating, in every vehicle. She pointed out that Alaska's current law requires the proper use of safety devices for children under the age of 16, but it does not include which safety device must be used based on the child's age, height, and weight. MS. CASHEN provided the reason for placing newborn babies facing backward in vehicles is that position has been found to be the safest for their skeletal structure during vehicular crashes. She explained the U.S. Department of Transportation's chief counsel has determined that Alaska would be eligible to receive new federal funds with the passage of SB 72. She stated that the DOT&PF would apply for an estimated $194,000 in the next federal fiscal year. She stressed that up to 50 percent of the funds would be disbursed to programs to purchase and distribute child safety seats and restraints to low-income families. Other funding could be used for enforcement and education. She opined that the DOT&PF provides informative and easy to understand brochures. She pointed out that the law is difficult for some to read and there have been tragedies involving children involved in accidents due to parents mistakenly using the wrong safety restraint device. She opined that SB 72 would make the information easier to understand and Alaska would be eligible for federal funds. 1:21:37 PM MS. CASHEN, in response to Representative Johansen, stated that this funding has been available to states since the passage of the Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFTEA-LU). She explained that she provided the sponsor with information on available funding. In further response to Representative Johansen, Ms. Cashen explained the agency tracks federal legislation and supports bills that promote highway safety. She explained that a similar bill did not pass the U.S. Transportation committee last year. 1:24:21 PM LEE PARHAM, State EMS Training Coordinator, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, stated that the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) supports SB 72. This bill would amend AS 28.05.095(b) to set the specific standards for the use of child passenger restraint. She related that motor vehicle related injuries are the leading cause of death in the U.S. of children between the ages of 2 and 14 years of age and is also one of the leading causes of hospitalization and mortality for infants and children from birth to 14 years of age. In 2006, seven children were severely injured in Alaska in motor vehicle crashes. According to the Alaska Trauma Registry (ATR) between 2002 and 2006, 63 children were injured in Alaska. She reported children restrained in booster seats are 59 percent less likely to be injured in crashes than children restrained by lap belt only. Nationally, voluntary seatbelt inspection stations report that 80 to 85 percent of children are improperly restrained and one-third children under the age of 14 use the wrong type of restraint. According to the ATR, greater than 85 percent of the children hospitalized were improperly restrained using a lap belt or shoulder harness only, or were not restrained at all. She opined current statute that references child safety device is confusing about the specific standards of age and weight-based restraints. This bill is designed to eliminate confusion about which restraints are appropriate for each age, weight, and level. The bill would clarify the types of passenger restraint required by various ages and sizes to prevent and minimize vehicular injuries. Currently, 43 states have passed booster seat legislation qualifying them for U.S. Department of Transportation and Highway Safety grants. 1:27:22 PM CHAIR WILSON related her own observation of noticing a small child riding in the front seat of a vehicle and not using a booster seat. She corrected earlier testimony given by stating that last legislature a similar bill died in the House Rules Committee and not the House Transportation Committee. 1:29:11 PM SENATOR FRENCH, in response to Representative Johansen, indicated that last year the fiscal note was positive, and this year the fiscal note is a zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN related his understanding that half of the potential $200,000 in grant funs would be used for purchasing booster seats and car seats for low income families and the remainder for educational purposes. He inquired whether more funds would be used for purchasing seats and for clarification of the disbursement of grant funds if the bill passes. SENATOR FRENCH answered that he would leave it to the program managers. He related that a 50 - 50 split between purchases and education sounds about right. He said the purpose of the bill is not to penalize parents for not having car seats, but to have children use them to prevent injuries. He reiterated his comfort with the DOT&PF's decisions on distribution of potential grant funds. 1:30:17 PM MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that the DOT&PF fiscal note (FN) is not yet in the packet. She explained the FN is indeterminate, which speaks to fact that the DOT&PF should receive $194,000 for the program. However, since the amount of the potential federal funding is unknown, the FN is considered indeterminate. 1:31:09 PM JOHN COOK, speaking on behalf of the AADA, offered support for SB 72. He recalled a similar bill passed the Senate last year, but did not pass the legislature. He stated that the AADA supports the bill for a variety of reasons. He explained the current law was written in 1985. He recalled in 1985, vehicles did not have the same safety features as today. He offered his belief that his own vehicle in 1985 had a lap belt but not a harness while his current vehicle is the same brand of vehicle, just 24 years newer and it is equipped with front and side air bags, air curtains, crumple zones, and other safety systems that did not exist when the current law was written. He emphasized that safety seats need to be appropriate for the height and weight of the child since safety devices like air bags have explosive force and can do serious bodily injury to children. He related that at his dealership he has observed booster seats incorrectly installed or children in the wrong type of seat. He offered his belief that this law will provide clarification to parents, families, and law enforcement on the appropriate safety seat. He stressed the importance to "get the children in the right kind of seat and have a safe driving environment." He opined that the current law gives parents the option of putting a four-year-old in a seatbelt and not one manufacturer would support that an average four-year-old belongs in a seat belt. He related his understanding that the federal highway bill has not yet been authorized so these funds may not be available in 2010. However, the federal funds are currently available to help educate parents and provide booster seats for low-income families, he stated. He urged members to support SB 72 and pass it out of committee today. 1:35:13 PM GORDON GLASE, Anchorage Trails & Greenways Coalition (ATGC), speaking on behalf of the ATGC, informed members that all child restraints built in the U.S. recognize being rear facing for the first year or until the child weighs 20 pounds. He mentioned that is the same recommendation of all automobile manufacturers. He stated that this bill is set up to make it easier for parents and law enforcement to understand the law so no child is injured due to the parent not knowing which way the child should be facing or which restraint to use. 1:36:02 PM CHAIR WILSON, after first determining no one wished else to testify, closed public testimony on SB 72. 1:36:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS0376\E.1, Luckhaupt, 3/16/09, which read: Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 19.10.095 is amended to read: Sec. 19.10.095. Signs promoting the use of safety belts and child safety devices. The department may erect and maintain signs encouraging the use of safety belts and child safety devices at the site of a motor vehicle accident where a fatality occurred as the result of a person's failing to use a safety belt or child safety device. This section does not limit the authority of the department to erect or maintain signs to protect the public safety and welfare of persons using the highways of the state." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" 1:36:53 PM CHAIR WILSON objected for purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 1 would allow the DOT&PF to erect signs at the site of a motor vehicle accident in which a fatality occurred. He explained that currently a sign can be erected if a person was not using a safety belt, and this would expand the provision to child safety devices. He said he was not aware of any objection from the bill sponsor or the DOT&PF. 1:38:17 PM MARK NEIDHOLD, P.E., Chief, Design and Construction Standards, Division of Design and Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained he has reviewed Amendment 1 and stated that the department has no issue. 1:38:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether any costs will be absorbed by the DOT&PF. He related his understanding that under the bill the DOT&PF would encourage use of devices, which would likely require printing brochures. MR. NEIDHOLD related that the DOT&PF offers a zero fiscal note as any cost will be absorbed under the existing program. He explained that the DOT&PF has a memorial sign program and the DOT&PF bears the cost of signs the public requests based on criteria set by regulation based on the type of accident and the conditions that prevailed. Signs range from one that state "Please Buckle-Up", "Please Drive Safely", and "PleaseDon't Drink and Drive" types of signs. While this bill would require a new sign, the DOT&PF has an ongoing cost that is already covered. He stated the DOT&PF would presume this is part of that existing program in terms of distribution. He pointed out that the DOT&PF does not anticipate an increase in the number of overall signs, just a change in the type of sign. 1:40:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ emphasized the importance of sensitivity with respect to the message that would be placed on the proposed sign. She opined that a family lives with the child's death forever and a sign might constantly remind parents of their loss and could potentially unwittingly contribute to guilty feelings. MR. NEIDHOLD related the current application process for a memorial sign assumes that the family would make the application. He surmised someone outside the family could make an application. He offered to review current regulations to assure that someone else could not make the application. He offered his belief that the DOT&PF is very concerned about the perception the public has about signs. He further offered that the current sign for a fatality, not caused by drunk driver, but due to the person not wearing a safety belt reads "Please Buckle Up" with a plague under the sign which reads "In memory of" or "Sponsored by" followed by the person's name. He related his understanding that the specific language has not yet been developed final language for a memorial sign for a child safety seat. However, he said it would likely be similar to that language, be unmistakable, and not cause distraction for other drivers. He surmised that it would be similar and brief in nature. 1:43:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN agreed that is an excellent point. He asked to see the language. He expressed concern for a family and asserted the family's right to decide whether or not a memorial sign is placed. MR. NEIDHOLD offered to provide the language to the committee when it is developed. CHAIR WILSON withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:44:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report SB 72, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 72(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 132 Backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| CSHB132 Bill.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB132-DOT-AS-PD-03-13-09.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| SB 111 Backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
SB 111 |
| HB 132 Sectional.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| Sectional for CSHB132.pdf |
HTRA 3/19/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 132 |