Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/30/1999 01:05 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1999
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Relating to use of passenger facility charges at the Anchorage
International Airport.
- MOVED HCR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 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."
- MOVED CSHB 108(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 3
SHORT TITLE: PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES AT ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/11/99 427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/11/99 427 (H) TRA, FIN
3/30/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Halcro, Phillips, Kerttula
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/22/99 278 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/22/99 278 (H) TRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/26/99 328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS, KERTTULA
3/30/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for
Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6848
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided details on HCR 3 and answered
questions.
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT/PF)
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-6977
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of DOT/PF in support of
HCR 3.
KIP KNUTSON, Marketing Director
Era Aviation
6160 Carl Brady Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 244-1920
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Anchorage on
behalf of Era Aviation in opposition to HCR 3.
MELINDA HOFSTAD, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6826
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Hudson
to provide details and answer questions on HB
108.
MAKO HAGGERTY
P.O. Box 2001
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-9055
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Homer in
support of HB 108.
NANCY LETHCOE, Owner
Alaska Wilderness Sailing and Kayaking
P.O. Box 1313
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5175
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Valdez in
support of HB 108.
CLIFF JUDKINS President
Alaska Boating Association;
Co-Chair, Alaska Boating Safety Council
P.O. Box 874174
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-3591
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Mat-Su LIO
in support of HB 108.
JERRY GEORGE
Seward Boat Owners Association
3640 Dora Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-1841
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the original version of HB 108.
BRAD SNOW, President
Fairbanks Paddlers
P.O. Box 83329
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: Not provided.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 108; stated support for
concept of Alaskan boating safety law, but
expressed concerns about proposed CS.
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 108.
ROGER MacCAMPBELL
P.O. Box 321
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7024
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 108 in concept.
MIKE FOLKERTS, Member
Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council
23739 Sunny Glen Drive
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-8273
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 108 on behalf of the council.
BARRIE SWAIN
9667 Victor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 344-7105
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in full support of HB 108.
STEVE MORGHEIM, Executive Director
Alaska Marine Dealers Association
2440 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 561-4554
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed CS for
HB 108, not original bill; provided
suggestions.
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Coordinator
United States Coast Guard
P.O. Box 25517
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-2297
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 108.
KATHY O'GARA, Member
Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council
222 Tongass Drive
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 966-8797
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of concept of HB 108.
ERIC DOWNEY
Knik Canoers and Kayers
2200 Jennison
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-1669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 108; provided suggestions.
PAUL DONHEFFNER, Director
Oregon State Marine Board
435 Commercial Street, NE, Suite 400
Salem, Oregon 97310
Telephone: (503) 373-1405 (x 244)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 108 on behalf of
Oregon State Marine Board, Western States
Boating Administrators Association, and
National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators.
BARBARA SANDS, District Commodore
17th District Coast Guard Auxiliary
4837 Knights Way
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4805
Telephone: (907) 333-6275
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 108 in support of boating
safety legislation.
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Community Health and Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department or Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Telephone: (907) 465-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 108.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator
Director's Office
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question about boat titling.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Masek, Halcro, Hudson, Cowdery
and Sanders. Representatives Kookesh and Kemplen arrived at 1:08
p.m. and 1:09 p.m., respectively.
HCR 3 - PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES AT ANCHORAGE
CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business was House
Concurrent Resolution No. 3, Relating to use of passenger facility
charges at the Anchorage International Airport.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY explained that HCR 3 has been put forward by
the subcommittee appointed by Chair Masek, consisting of
Representatives Cowdery, Kemplen and Sanders. The resolution came
about after hearing extensive testimony in a joint meeting of the
House and Senate Transportation Standing Committees, and Era
Aviation is the only party on record who opposes passenger facility
charges.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated, "I favor this resolution because I
think it is in the public interest. Right now, Alaskans are paying
about $3.5 million per year in PFCs [Passenger Facility Charges]
that go to outside airports. If the governor starts collecting
PFCs at the Anchorage International Airport, we'll then capture
that $3.5 million for Alaska, and also collect about another $1.5
million, for a total of about $5 million per year to fund airport
improvements."
Number 0201
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for Representative John Cowdery, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to provide details on HCR 3 and
answer questions. He reiterated that the spirit of this measure is
to capture funds that are now going out of state, and giving the
airport system a more stable revenue base. Currently, PFCs are
paid by Alaskans who travel to Juneau and Ketchikan. Passenger
Facility Charges are supported by Alaska Airlines, Northern Air
Cargo, Reeve Aleutian Airways, Federal Express and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). Era Aviation is the only airline
that opposes PFCs at Anchorage, and their fear is that they'll lose
traffic due to an increase in ticket costs.
MR. TORKELSON said he was told that Horizon Air had similar
concerns when PFCs were implemented in Eastern Washington and
Oregon, and he felt those fears turned out to be largely
unjustified, as the traffic did not go down significantly from
those airports. This is especially interesting when considering
that those areas have four-lane freeways that do not go over
avalanche-prone passes; this makes automobile traffic even more of
an alternative for them than it is, potentially, for people from
Kenai. Mr. Torkelson expressed respect for Era Aviation's
position; however, it is his belief that PFCs will "do more good
for more people."
Number 0335
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO wondered if the legislature would need to
come back and create legislation that would allow PFCs to be
charged, or if this can be done simply by application to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF).
MR. TORKELSON reported that DOT/PF does not require legislative
authorization to implement a PFC program, and HCR 3 merely states
a position. It is, however, an extensive application process with
broad opportunities for public testimony and public input,
specifically, input from airport users who will be most affected by
these charges. He noted that the FAA must approve every program
that PFC receipts are used for, and they have to be in the best
interests of airport users.
Number 0421
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted that Era Aviation had concerns about
the Kenai Airport. He referred to a letter he received from the
John Williams, Mayor of Kenai, which indicated that they oppose
PFCs "at this time," and Representative Cowdery felt that the Kenai
Airport will, in time, look at PFCs. He read the last paragraph of
that letter as saying, "Due to the uncertainty of the future status
of the Anchorage AIP [Airport Improvement Program] funding program,
the city of Kenai will have to look at the PFC program if the need
arises. It is our request that the state legislature take no
action that would restrict the ability of the city of Kenai to
implement a PFC program." He summarized that letter by stating his
belief that Kenai is "keeping their options open."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that nothing in HCR 3 would
preclude the city of Kenai from implementing a PFC program in the
future.
Number 0593
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added that he was informed by FAA that there
are certain exemptions of rural communities that are a concern to
most people. They cannot guarantee what they will do until the
application is made, but when Juneau applied for PFCs, he believes,
the FAA approved all but one of the requested exemptions.
MR. TORKELSON said it is important to note that this resolution
only addresses the PFC issue at Anchorage. He reported that United
States Senator Ted Stevens is working to amend the PFC legislation
to allow broader exemptions for some Alaskan communities; however,
their information is that this legislation probably will not go
through this year.
Number 0647
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO felt that the concerns raised by Era Aviation
were well-founded. They serve markets that are traditionally lower
in fare, but they also had some concerns about amendments that U.S.
Senator Stevens was proposing on a federal level regarding
exempting carriers that have 18 seats or less. On some runs, at
the last minute, they can go from an 18-seat plane to a 37-seat
aircraft. He reported that they also had some concerns regarding
central air service, as some cities, like Cordova, compete head-on
with Alaska Airlines, which would be exempt from collecting the
PFC. He emphasized that he wholeheartedly supports PFCs; however,
he reminded the committee that there was, at one point, discussion
about exempting intrastate travel from PFCs. He asked the sponsor
if that is still an opportunity.
Number 0743
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY thought that issue would be addressed by
DOT/PF at the time of application.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that Era Aviation is just concerned
about making sure there is a level playing field. He noted that
Reeve Aleutian Airways supports PFCs; however, if the amendments
supported by U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were approved, Reeve Aleutian
Airways would never collect a PFC, as all of the locations they
service are communities are less than 10,000 in population and not
connected by a highway system. He felt it was important for the
committee to keep in mind that Reeve Aleutian Airways' glowing
support of PFCs is in light of the fact that their customers might
not have to pay for them. He added that Kenai and Homer are
relatively low-fare markets, and it is important that one or two
carriers are not disenfranchised.
Number 0866
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, testified on
behalf of DOT/PF in support of HCR 3. He said the department
intends to apply for PFCs and welcomes the legislature's discussion
and support of this resolution.
CHAIR MASEK asked if Mr. Parkan could respond to some of the
questions and concerns previously raised in this meeting.
MR. PARKAN reopened the question of intrastate-versus-interstate
exemption, and he noted that this issue was something DOT/PF looked
at in the past. He believes the state of Hawaii tried to implement
this exemption so that only incoming tourists would pay PFCs, but
the FAA denied it, stating they could not put a barrier at their
border. He supposed it was conceivable to request some statutory
change to PFC legislation, but the approach DOT/PF has taken is an
attempt to not set up a flag in everyone else's mind throughout the
country. Their goal was to implement something fairly minor and
innocuous that would not receive a lot of scrutiny from other
senators and congressmen. Mr. Parkan said, "If you tried an
exemption that drew a line at the border, you would have a major,
I would think, battle on your hands."
Number 0961
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the second-to-last paragraph of
the letter of support from DOT/PF Commissioner Joseph L. Perkins,
and noted that it expressed DOT/PF's support for waiving PFCs for
rural and remote areas, using the guidelines of U.S. Senator
Stevens: communities less than 10,000 in population and not
connected to the land highway system. He agreed that past
discussions indicated that borders could not be put up. He
stressed, however, that some of these communities are unique in
nature and require last-minute changes in aircraft. In an effort
to not create an unfair burden of collection, yet ensure that these
small communities are covered, he asked if the 18-seat-or-less
exemption could be possibly be "bumped up."
Number 1026
MR. PARKAN agreed. He pointed out that DOT/PF did not participate
in the development of 18-passenger aircraft exemption language. He
also felt that the concerns of Era Aviation are legitimate and need
to be addressed, and he confirmed that changing aircraft would
create a problem with the exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO wondered if that was something DOT/PF could
apply for.
MR. PARKAN assured Representative Halcro that DOT/PF is not
pursuing the use of an 18-passenger exemption, and that he has
forwarded those concerns raised at the last meeting to Washington,
D.C., to share with U.S. Senator Stevens.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO clarified, "Is it possible for you, in your
application to the FAA, to say, 'We request a waiver for aircrafts
30 seats or smaller or 35 seats or smaller'?"
MR. PARKAN indicated that DOT/PF could request that as one of their
possible exemptions; however, he suspects the FAA would not grant
that request, because it would not be made a statutory change to
the law.
Number 1125
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY reported it was his understanding that money
collected from rural airports could be pooled to do repairs or
construction at those airports.
MR. PARKAN noted that the state of Alaska does own virtually all of
the airports in the state. He confirmed that it was possible to
use money collected at one airport for a project at another
airport, provided they are all under the sponsorship of the state;
however, it is not the intent of DOT/PF to do so at this time.
Number 1181
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if it would be helpful to consider
a further resolve, and he brought up the following: "Be it further
resolved that the application take into consideration measures to
reduce or exempt passengers traveling to or from small communities
within Alaska." He explained the intent of this resolve as not
being specific, rather general in nature but instructive to DOT/PF
to essentially hear these other voices and further work with them.
He noted that he was not offering this amendment at that time, but
was just bringing it up for discussion.
Number 1263
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY expressed understanding that DOT/PF already
intends to do this, but he asked Mr. Parkan if this is the case.
MR. PARKAN stated that he would have to hear the language again.
He understood the resolve to be directing DOT/PF to consider the
small communities that would be affected, and he agreed that Kenai
would be one of those communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reread the statement to Mr. Parkan.
MR. PARKAN said, "It seems like a reasonable addition. I don't
think we [DOT/PF] have any problem with that."
Number 1352
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO agreed that DOT/PF is already addressing
those concerns by applying for the exemption of small communities
and those communities not connected to a land-based highway system.
He reiterated that he strongly supports this legislation, but
continued to express concern. He cited the following example: a
14-day "Super Saver" fare from Barrow to Anchorage, round trip, is
about $325, and no PFC would be required. However, Kenai to
Anchorage or Homer to Anchorage is $57 round trip, and a $3 PFC
will be charged. In addition, equipment will vary, so an
individual may or may not have to pay the PFC. He felt that this
is not evenly applied, and that it is flat charge instead of a
percentage charge.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO summarized his concerns by stating, "If we
are going to make exceptions based on geographic locations, then we
should make exceptions on smaller communities' fare base. You
know, I've traveled to Valdez several times, and flown in on a
small plane, and then the flight has been canceled and you've got
... two flights backed up, and so they bring in a larger plane.
Now, if PFCs were in place and I flew in on an 18-seater, I
wouldn't pay it, but if they come in with a larger aircraft ... to
get the two flights, how are they going to collect it? Are they
going to stop me at the gate? Do I have to pay at the counter?"
He expressed concern that PFCs would not equally apply to everyone.
MR. PARKAN reiterated that it is not the intent of DOT/PF to pursue
the 18-passenger exemption.
Number 1466
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he feels sure that most of the rural
communities, even those not tied to road-based systems, have costs
associated with their airports. He asked, "Why don't we just
charge everybody three dollars and, somehow, designate that
three-dollar charge back to the rural airports?" He added,
"Everybody needs money. If we exempt them, nobody gets it." He
pointed out that all airports need maintenance work.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO sought clarification as to whether money
collected could be used at other airports.
MR. PARKAN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH suggested collecting the PFC and allowing
the money to be used at rural airport, adding that he was certain
none of the rural airports would object. He felt that current
objections by those rural areas have to do with the fact that they
would be paying but not getting anything out of it.
Number 1536
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, "What I am hearing is that perhaps my
amendment would not be useful, that it might preclude us from
making a collection from small communities arriving and departing
from the Anchorage area, and then sharing, in some sort of a
pooling mechanism, those funds for the smaller airports at other
parts of Alaska. ... I think, in fact, it might be restrictive ...
of pooling the money for the smaller airplanes." He added, "I
wouldn't wish to offer it under those circumstances."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that a previous presentation by DOT/PF
explained that there had to be a certain amount of passengers per
small, medium and large airport to make it cost-effective to
collect a PFC.
MR. PARKAN said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed concern that funds collected will
actually be given back to those small airports.
MR. PARKAN reminded Representative Halcro that PFCs would be
collected at Anchorage for flights leaving Anchorage. He felt
Representative Halcro was concerned about the problems that would
occur with collecting PFCs at some of the smaller communities
themselves.
Number 1646
KIP KNUTSON, Marketing Director, Era Aviation, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HCR 3. He read the
following key points regarding their opposition into the record:
The community of Kenai is Era's largest passenger market. We
have served Kenai for over 15 years and have seen six other
air carriers come and go in that time frame. More than any
other market we serve, Kenai is highly price-sensitive, and
currently Era is their only carrier. Our biggest competition
is the new and improved roadway that has cut driving time to
Anchorage by approximately one hour.
Era's full "walk-up" fare between Anchorage and Kenai is
$55.00. Included in that amount is an 8 percent
transportation tax, and the reason for 8 percent, rather than
the normal 7.5 [percent], is that Kenai is within a 75-mile
radius of Anchorage International [Airport], and is considered
a "non-rural airport." Due to this proximity, Era must also
collect an additional tax in the form of a two-dollar "segment
fee" from each passenger. That increases the out-of-pocket
fare to $57.00. To saddle Kenai passengers with yet another
tax in the form of a three-dollar Passenger Facility Charge
would mean that approximately 15 percent of each full fare is
pure tax. Obviously, the tax percentage increases with
discounted and advance-purchase fares. The PFC alone would
constitute just over 5 percent of the airfare to Kenai. On
long-haul flights to Seattle and beyond, PFCs are well below
1 percent of the total airfare. Residents of the Kenai
Peninsula should not be subjected to such unbalanced taxation.
Now, as you've heard from several people, [U.S.] Senator [Ted]
Stevens has sponsored some language in the FAA Reauthorization
Bill, and that bill will most likely pass. Among regional air
carriers based in Anchorage, Era would carry a
disproportionate share of the load in collecting PFCs. The
exemptions that Senator Stevens has written into the bill
exclude communities with a population of less than 10,000, and
those not connected by a land or vehicular way to the
land-connected National Highway System; that includes cities
served by the marine highway system.
In effect, this means that Anchorage-based carriers such as
Reeve [Aleutian Airlines] and PenAir would not be required to
collect a PFC on local airfares. With the exception of
Iliamna, every Era destination would be subject to PFCs, by
virtue of the fact that they are connected by either road or
the marine ferry system. This is an inequity which singles
out both Era and its customers.
Now, if the Senate Bill passes that Senator Stevens has worked
on, it would also exempt carriers from collecting PFCs aboard
and aircraft having a seating capacity -- it is actually less
than 20 seats. Era currently operates 18-passenger aircraft,
37- and 50-passenger aircraft, in the Kenai and Homer markets.
Passenger loads can jump in the final hours before departure,
justifying an upgrade from the 18-seat aircraft to the 37-seat
aircraft. The reverse is also true.
In any case, it is not realistic to have a two-tier pricing
structure in a common market whereby passengers riding on the
larger aircraft pay more than those on a smaller aircraft. It
would be impossible to collect PFCs in advance, not knowing
which aircraft would be on what. The 20-passenger seat
exemption places an insurmountable burden on Era Aviation,
and, as you further debate this issue, I might bring to light
... the fact that a worthwhile seat exemption limit would be
60 seat(s). That corresponds to FAA regulation, part 107, and
is the dividing line for security screening and secure areas
in airports. Any aircraft over 60 seats, passengers have to
be screened, that is, you go through the x-ray machines, etc.
Anything below that, ... that is not required. So, the
60-passenger exemption would make more sense, and it would
actually be tied to an existing regulation.
Number 1842
MR. KNUTSON continued:
An interesting situation exists in Cordova, a market served by
both Era and Alaska Airlines. According to FAR [Federal
Aviation Administration Regulations], part 158.9, Alaska
Airlines cannot collect a PFC, because they are the Essential
Air Service (EAS) subsidy provider in Cordova. Era does not
receive that EAS subsidy, and, therefore, would have to
collect a PFC under current language. This puts Era in an
immediate price disadvantage in a common market with our own
partner, Alaska Airlines.
While no one questions that PFCs can provide a reliable
revenue stream to the Anchorage International Airport, the
question that must be answered is whether or not the push for
PFCs is an attempt to mask the known cost overruns on the
terminal expansion project. Before we apply a Band-Aid, we
must first address the wound. Era withdrew its objections to
the terminal expansion and has not changed that position;
however, as the second largest carrier of passengers to and
from the Anchorage International Airport, it is our desire to
seek other solutions before we disproportionately shift the
tax burden onto our customers.
It is important to note that approximately 75 percent of Era's
passenger traffic is local in nature. These are not
passengers whose PFC money is now winging its way south. In
actual fact, these are passengers who did not necessarily need
the expanded terminal project in the first place, but will
certainly be forced to carry a disproportionate share of the
load if PFC legislation ... PFC regime, is enacted,
particularly those from the community of Kenai.
With respect to regional carriers in Alaska, either all should
be required to collect PFCs, with no exemptions whatsoever, or
all should be excluded. Era Aviation clearly prefers the
latter approach. However, we are willing to seek equitable
alternative solutions. One alternative approach might be for
regionals to collect a PFC for Anchorage, but only in
conjunction with a down-line ticket, that is to say, a
passenger traveling Kenai to Anchorage and then beyond,
outside of the state's borders. Thank you for you time and
your consideration of Era Aviation's position on this issue.
Number 1960
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HCR 3 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objections, HCR 3 moved out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS
Number 1990
CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business to be House Bill
No. 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."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON, prime sponsor, explained that extensive work
has been done with boating safety individuals and groups throughout
the state of Alaska, and he believed it would expedite things to
adopt the work draft rather than go back to the original version of
HB 108. He felt many constructive changes have been made;
therefore, he moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute for
HB 108, version 1-LS0445/M, Ford, 03/26/99, as the document before
the committee.
CHAIR MASEK asked whether there were any objections. There being
none, Version M was before the committee.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that Version M will establish a
comprehensive boating safety program in Alaska, which he believes
will save lives. He noted that Alaska is the last state in the
Union to not have such a program. Monies collected in Alaska and
shipped outside of the state would be used for boating safety
education and state operation, as opposed to federal operation, of
a boating safety program.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON advised members that the bill proposes to
transfer the responsibilities and regulatory authority over boating
safety equipment and other operating requirements from the United
States Coast Guard to the state of Alaska. Additionally, the state
would assume the registration that is currently managed by the
Coast Guard, and this would operate through the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) in the Department of Administration. Using their
current system, vessel owners and small boat owners would be able
to either go directly to the DMV and use their by-mail, on-line or
in-person registration. This legislation would also authorize new
boat dealers to provide for the registration of boats at the point
of sale.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reported that 38 Alaskans lost their lives in
boating accidents in 1998, and Alaska continues to experience
nearly 10 times the national rate of boating accidents. Efforts
have been made by the Coast Guard, the state of Alaska, and various
other individuals and organizations, but they are not centrally
located, nor are they coordinated. He pointed out that the
proposed committee substitute for HB 108 would assure that the
state manages and controls its own boating safety laws and
programs.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that HB 108 would mandate that boats
placed or used on state waters would be equipped with some or all
of the following: fire extinguishers, personal flotation devices,
life jackets, a sound-producing device, back-fire flame protectors,
and ventilation and visual distress signals. These items are
currently required by the Coast Guard, whether this legislation is
enacted or not.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that all motor boats with an
enclosed engine are prone to have volatile fumes build up within
those compartments. He reported having seen fires literally burn
to the water's edge in a matter of minutes. Many years ago, the
Coast Guard recognized that it was in everyone's interest to make
certain that carburetors and other spark-producing potentials
within the engine house have these protectors, as well as
ventilation to keep fumes from compiling within the engine house.
The actual carriage would be identical to the Coast Guard
requirements for the type and size of the vessel being licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON observed that current Coast Guard regulations
call for this safety equipment in navigable waters within the
state; however, HB 108 would expand the requirement to all waters
of the state, thereby increasing the application to small streams
and lakes. He summarized by stating, "It is my belief, and I hope
you'll agree with me, that it's just as important to try to save
the lives of people on navigible waters as it is [on] some of the
smaller streams that, at least at this stage, because the Coast
Guard is operating it, are exempt."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that Alaska does not comply with the
Federal Safe Boating Act of 1971 by having its own program for safe
boating. Consequently, the state's share of federal marine fuel
taxes paid every year is not redistributed back to Alaska, as it is
to other states. Passage of HB 108 will assure that Alaska is
included in the redistribution of these taxes, he explained,
bringing approximately $500,000 annually back to the state, along
with approximately $600,000 annually in program receipts being
added to state coffers. These are the monies that would be paid to
the Coast Guard to register the boats, and this will more than
offset the cost of operating this program through the DMV. These
dollars will allow the state to make a major effort to educate the
boating public about boating safety, thereby lowering the rate of
accidents and deaths on Alaska's waterways. Under this proposal,
the charge for new registrations will be identical to the charges
established by the Coast Guard.
Number 2337
MELINDA HOFSTAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill
Hudson, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to further detail HB
108 and answer questions. She pointed out that there is intent
language on page 1, Section 1, that states, "at least 75 percent of
any federal funds generated as a result of this Act be used to fund
a statewide boating safety and education program".
MS. HOFSTAD next directed attention to Section 2, which imposes
equipment requirements on boats that have engines, and requires
that all boats carry sound-producing devices. She reiterated that
these carriage requirements are the same as the Coast Guard
currently requires. Section 2 also imposes restrictions on when a
boat must be operated with lights, and it imposes requirements for
carrying life jackets. It also prohibits the use of emergency
lights, except for police and emergency services, and allows the
department to require additional safety equipment by regulation.
MS. HOFSTAD informed the committee that Section 3 deals with boats
that are towing water skiers, and it has several new provisions:
there must be a rearview mirror in the boat towing the skier; there
must be a spotter or observer in the boat, and that person has to
be over 12 years of age; and the person water skiing has to wear an
approved life jacket. Section 4 requires a person involved in a
boating accident to render assistance and exchange information, and
it requires that a boat operator file certain accident information.
MS. HOFSTAD explained that Sections 5 and 6 are basically changing
the language from inland waters, which state law covers now, to all
waters in the state of Alaska. Section 7 requires that the state
develop and adopt regulations establishing a uniform waterway
marking system, which would be the same system as the Coast
Guard's.
TAPE 99-14, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. HOFSTAD added that Section 7 also establishes the parameters of
the Alaska Boating Safety Council, made up of seven members
appointed by the governor, and it gives the council a veto power
over regulations, other than those regulations that fail to comply
with federal requirements or state law. Section 13, she noted,
imposes the fees, which are the same as those required by the Coast
Guard now; those fees are $24 for a new, three-year registration.
Section 14 is all definitions. Section 15 provides that boating
accident reports are not public record. Section 16 provides that
a person cited for a violation does not have to provide a written
promise to appear in court, similar to vehicle tickets. Section 17
authorizes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to adopt
regulations. Finally, Section 18 provides for an immediate
effective date.
Number 0119
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if this includes documented vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said no, adding that documented vessels will
continue to be managed by the Coast Guard.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked who does the boat inspections.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that this will be done through
volunteers in the U.S. Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or through the boating safety program coordinated by DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether there was cost involved.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified that it would be done on a
volunteer basis. He reiterated that 75 percent of the federal
money would go into education.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY expressed understanding that the Coast Guard
comes aboard at a boat owner's request to do voluntary inspections,
and that no fines are assessed if they find things that are not up
to par.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed that the essence of getting people
to carry safety equipment is not assessing fines or penalties, and
the inspection is completely on a volunteer basis.
Number 0178
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that the definitions section of the
bill states that "boat" means watercraft used or capable of being
used as a means of transportation on water, except for a ship's
lifeboat, a seaplane, and inspected passenger vessel, and a single
air mattress, single inner tube or other water toy. He asked if a
jet ski would be considered a "boat," thereby being subject to all
the carriage requirements.
MS. HOFSTAD confirmed that a jet ski is classified as a "boat," and
the carriage requirements are a fire extinguisher, a whistle to
produce sound, and an appropriate life jacket. Jet skis are not
allowed to run at night, so they do not require running lights.
She related that she went to a boat show to see where these items
could be kept on a jet ski, and she noted that there is a large
compartment in a jet ski with room for a small fire extinguisher
and a sound-producing device. She noted that most jet skiers she
has seen do wear the personal flotation device.
Number 0258
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to Section 1, subsection (2), and
noted that the intent of the legislation is that it not apply to
"boats such as kayaks, canoes, or other boats that are without
engines and are paddled, poled or rowed." He observed that intent
sections typically get "line-itemed out," and, if that occurred,
the definition section would be left to work with. Consequently,
he wondered why the language that exempts kayaks, canoes or other
paddled, poled or rowed boats is not included in subsection (d)
under the definition of boat.
MS. HOFSTAD explained that it has been difficult to divide HB 108,
because Section 1, subsection (2), actually is only exempting those
individuals from certain carriage requirements. She acknowledged
that perhaps the wording was not yet exactly how it should be;
however, the intent was to spell out the carriage requirements in
a way that conforms with what the Coast Guard requires, not to
exempt those boats from registration.
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that fire extinguishers and back-flame
arresters only apply to a boat with an engine in it; however,
registration would still be required to register with the state and
be issued a certificate of numbers, and they would still be
required to carry an appropriate life preserver. He added that the
Coast Guard defines the "appropriate life preserver" differently
according to whether one is in a power boat or kayak, or on water
skis or a jet ski.
MS. HOFSTAD stated that she has just recently seen the proposed
committee substitute, Version M, for HB 108, and she has also
wondered whether subsection (2) of Section 1 should go under
Section 2. She indicated that it is really not a statement of
intent; rather, it is part of the safety requirements, and
consideration might be made to moving it.
Number 0392
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN agreed it is appropriate to move that
language somewhere else, especially since this is a work draft. He
also referred the committee to Section 05.25.060, titled
"Prohibited operation." He noted that a significant number of
accidents occur because individuals are operating under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. He acknowledged that he did not
know what current regulations say about driving a watercraft under
the influence; however, given the facts that a motorized vehicle on
water can be equally as dangerous as a motorized vehicle on land,
he felt this section would be an appropriate place to reference
that.
MS. HOFSTAD informed the committee that this is covered in the
statutes in AS 28.35.030, "Operating a vehicle, aircraft or
watercraft while intoxicated." She added that she was told by
Coast Guard personnel that it is the same standard as for driving
a vehicle under the influence.
Number 0482
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN pointed out that the word "watercraft" is
being replaced with the word "boat" in the proposed legislation.
He wondered, given that statutes currently refer to "watercraft,"
if introducing the word "boat" would be subject to a sharp-eyed
defense attorney's ability to find a loophole.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON directed attention to the definitions on page
10 of Version M. In subsection (2) of Section 14, "boat" is
defined as a watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water, with the exception of a ship's lifeboat,
seaplane, inspected passenger vessel, air mattress or inner tube.
He wondered if the Coast Guard was getting away from the term
"watercraft," but he agreed that it was a typical terminology for
many years. This terminology, however, included things other than
"boats," such as barges, log floats, log tubs, and so on.
MS. HOFSTAD quoted from AS 28.35.030, which says, "'operate a
watercraft' means to navigate or use a vessel used or capable of
being used as a means of transportation on water for recreational
or commercial purposes on all waters, fresh or salt, inland or
coastal, inside the territorial limits or under the jurisdiction of
the state". She told members that with this terminology in mind,
she did not feel this was going to be problem; however, it will be
addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, the next
committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that forfeiture rules also apply in the
statutes, and an intoxicated individual may have to forfeit his or
her watercraft.
Number 0610
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to page 7, line 17 of Version M,
Section 05.25.057, subsection (c), where it says that members of
the Alaska Boating Safety Council are entitled to per diem and
travel expenses. He asked whether these expenses would be paid
from the general fund, or if the fees are collected for operation
of the program itself.
MS. HOFSTAD stated her understanding that between $400,000 and
$600,000 would be coming to the state, depending upon how many
boats are going to register. She explained that 75 percent of this
money is going to education costs, leaving 25 percent for
administrative costs.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated that the intention is for this to
be a totally self-supporting program; in fact, there are sufficient
funds to support the program and expand boating education. Any per
diem and other legitimate expenses that are part of this council
would be underwritten by the fees that are collected.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked whether it would show up in the budget
underneath "program receipts."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said yes.
CHAIR MASEK wondered how often the Alaska Boating Safety Council
would be meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he suspects that there might be two or
three meetings in the beginning to set up the council; beyond that,
they would only meet as other issues come forward. He stressed
that it would be entirely covered by the fees that are collected.
Number 0733
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed concern about Section 3, subsection
(b), page 3, line 15, which says, "(b) A person may not operate a
boat, [WATERCRAFT] on [THE] water of the state to tow a person
under 13 years of age on water skis, a surfboard, or a similar
device ..." He suggested eliminating the phrase "under 13 years of
age". He related that he water skis, but he would not be pulled
without a life preserver, as friends have experienced horrible
falls and have been knocked unconscious.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that all kinds of things could happen
if one is being towed outside of a boat, and he wondered if the age
of 13 should be increased, or even if the age requirement should be
done away with. An individual who is outside the boat being
pulled, he pointed out, is going 35 or 40 miles an hour, regardless
of what type of device that person is on, and Representative Halcro
believes that the age of 13 is too young to not be wearing a life
preserver.
Number 0810
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that a little higher requirement
has been established for people who are 13 and under, and it is
required that they wear a life jacket in this particular instance.
If they are 14 or older, in Alaska there has always been trouble in
the past demanding that they wear anything from motorcycle helmets
to life jackets. The state wants them to, and will educate them to
do so, but the law protects children 13 years and younger.
Representative Hudson said he would like to see that provision stay
in there.
Number 0853
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to Representative Kemplen's
question of who would be on the Alaska Boating Safety Council. He
related that there are many boards and commissions in Anchorage,
and the people who serve on those usually do it as a public
service. Even though they can charge up to a certain dollar
amount, most of the time their service is gratis.
Number 0930
MAKO HAGGERTY testified via teleconference from Homer in support of
HB 108. He reported that he is a commercial fisherman and a water
taxi operator in the summertime. He has worked the waters of
Alaska for approximately 18 years, and he knows how dangerous those
waters can be at times. If the bill means getting back some or all
of the fees and taxes paid by Alaskans, he believes it is a good
idea; he urged the committee to pass it.
Number 0983
NANCY LETHCOE, Alaska Wilderness Sailing and Kayaking, testified
via teleconference from Valdez. She and her husband have owned
Alaska Wilderness Sailing and Kayaking for the past 25 years, and
they are the authors of the book "Cruising Guide to Prince William
Sound." She reported that, over the last 15 years since doing
research for their book, they have been very concerned about the
boating safety statistics for Alaska. They have spent a lot of
time discussing this with others and trying to think about
solutions.
MS. LETHCOE stated:
I would really like to applaud Representative Hudson for
introducing this bill. I think it's a major step forward to
focusing in Alaska on the specific types of accidents that are
most likely to occur in Alaska, and then being able to develop
an education and safety program that is suited for Alaska,
rather than a generic one that is suited for Florida as well
as Alaska. We have different conditions in Alaska, and I
think we need to look at them.
So, in general, I really support this bill. I share some of
the concerns about some of the ... language. We have some
boats with electric motors on them, and I am not sure that a
back-fire flame protector is appropriate, so somehow that
language needs to be cleaned up and made for the appropriate
type of boat. I also share the concern about the use of drugs
and alcohol, that these accidents can occur, particularly on
holidays. We've seen some deplorable boatmanship going in and
out of harbors, of people who are under the influence, and
would certainly like to see strongly language on that."
Number 1082
MS. LETHCOE admitted that she has the old copy of HB 108 that was
drafted before the committee substitute; however, she expressed
concern over Section 3, AS 05.25.030, regarding boat collisions,
accidents, and casualties. She stated:
We did a risk assessment last year with the help of the U.S.
Coast Guard of members and everybody else we could contact
from cruise ships to kayaks, trying to analyze the types of
accidents that were mostly likely to occur. And it was very
interesting that there was almost unanimous agreement among
all vessel operators that it was very difficult, for example,
to see kayaks when they were going into the sun. ...
But then we discovered that what they were really saying often
was that they couldn't see them on the radar and that they
weren't really looking for them and keeping a visual lookout.
So, we're concerned about some language that may need to be
added in certain places about what it is to maintain a proper
lookout.
MS. LETHCOE stated that a kayaker's greatest fear is blind corners,
where a power vessel comes around a blind corner traveling at full
speed and traps the kayak between the boat and the cliffs. The
wake of a boat can roll a kayak, which has happened. She believes
that this could be resolved with better education. Last year a
flyer was put out regarding these boating safety issues. During
the process, it was discovered that no records are kept regarding
accidents which do not result in loss of life or injury or damage
less than $500. This legislation continues the lack of record
keeping, which Ms. Lethcoe expressed the need to change.
MS. LETHCOE suggested that there should not be any reference to
monetary value. If there is an accident, the accident should be
reported, which could provide information as to where accidents are
occurring in order to develop boating safety materials and programs
targeted for the most likely audiences. In conclusion, Ms. Lethcoe
applauded the committee's efforts and expressed hope that the
committee would move forward with HB 108.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that Ms. Lethcoe brought out some good
points that could be fleshed out and reviewed by this new council.
He explained that this attempts to place Alaskan citizens in the
driver's seat with the Department of Public Safety and the Coast
Guard in order to identify areas of deficiency. He invited Ms.
Lethcoe to contact the committee in order to ensure that her
comments are carried forward.
Number 1317
CLIFF JUDKINS, President, Alaska Boating Association; and Co-Chair,
Alaska Boating Safety Council, testified via teleconference from
the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, noting that he is a 36-year boating
resident of Alaska. He informed the committee that last fall, the
Alaska Boating Association was approached by the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and asked to endorse the development of the
Alaska Boating Safety Act within the DNR. Following much
discussion, the Alaska Boating Association Board of Directors
adopted a resolution which supported the development of legislation
to establish the Alaska Recreational Boating Safety Act.
MR. JUDKINS said that motorized recreationists, including boaters,
have not fared well in past dealings with DNR and therefore,
discussions with DNR were entered into cautiously. There was
concern that DNR would develop an Act to further its non-motorized
agenda or to acquire more money to use against motorized
recreationists. Mr. Judkins stated that changes have been made
with the legislation to satisfy concerns. He said, "As now worded,
75 percent of federally generated funds, as a result of the Act,
must be used for statewide boating safety and education programs.
Non-motorized craft must be registered and pay their fair share."
MR. JUDKINS pointed out that the Alaska Boating Safety Council has
the power to override DNR's safety regulation. The legislation
specifically excludes the authority to prohibit the use or access
to waters of the state by a person or user group. Many still have
serious concerns regarding any program administered by DNR.
However, Mr. Judkins stated, the Alaska Boating Association, as a
whole and by board endorsement, supports HB 108 as amended. The
monies to support the program are currently spent by Alaskans in
registration fees and boat fuel taxes. Those funds go to the
federal government in order to be distributed to other states to
fund their boating safety program. Adoption of this legislation
will return these funds to Alaska. Mr. Judkins informed the
committee that registration fees and fuel taxes are estimated to
generate in excess of $1 million per year.
MR. JUDKINS reiterated that there were 38 recreational
boating/drowning incidents in Alaska in 1998, which is 10 times the
national average per registered boat. Therefore, if only half of
Alaska's boats are registered in Alaska, that is still five times
the national average. Of the 38 victims, 11 were found without
life jackets, and 18 were not found at all. He suggested that
those 18 were not found because they weren't wearing life jackets.
Furthermore, alcohol was involved in 20 of the drownings, while 10
involved non-motorized craft. Mr. Judkins emphasized, "If we did
nothing more than convince canoers and families going home with
their groceries from town to put life jackets on, it would save
lives." He reiterated that the Alaska Boating Association supports
the bill, as well as safe boating for all Alaskans.
Number 1500
JERRY GEORGE, Seward Boat Owners Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee of his
early childhood experiences with boating the Trans-Atlantic and
Antarctica. Further, he mentioned his extensive sailing experience
in Alaska. Mr. George said that he applauds having the boating
safety program in Alaska. He clarified that the Boat Owners
Association has written to the committee in support of HB 108, not
the amended legislation which was just made available; the proposed
CS has some special interest items that are of concern. Mr. George
suggested that the Department of Administration be required to
retain the existing numbering system. He indicated that changing
the numbering system would require boat owners, lending
institutions, and all Alaskan harbor masters to change the numbers.
Retaining the current numbering system would be administratively
easier.
MR. GEORGE pointed out that the aforementioned fuel tax refers to
the federal marine fuel tax, not the state marine fuel tax. He
believes that the historical split between those two funding
sources - the federal marine fuel tax for boating safety and the
state marine fuel tax for infrastructure - should be maintained.
MR. GEORGE addressed the proposed CS. He said it exempts
commercial paddle boats from the license plate requirement, which
he indicated is not appropriate. He identified the exemption of
the commercial paddle boat as a special interest that devalues the
integrity of the original legislation. The original legislation is
further devalued by the veto of the regulations. He doesn't
believe that Alaska has given veto power to anyone but the
governor. Establishing an advisory board with veto power would be
a dangerous precedent and should be revisited. He pointed out that
boating access is inserted into boating safety legislation,
although the issues are separate and distinct; he believes that
doing so creates confusion. Mr. George encouraged the committee to
revert back to the original bill, which the Seward Boat Owners
Association supports.
Number 1891
BRAD SNOW, President, Fairbanks Paddlers, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He informed the committee that the
Fairbanks Paddlers is a 200-plus-member non-motorized boating club.
Furthermore, he is a member of the interim Alaska Boating Safety
Advisory Council. Mr. Snow supports the concept of an Alaskan
boating safety law. He said that Alaska's boating safety record is
one of the worst in the nation. One of the most important goals of
this legislature should be to pass an agreeable boating safety bill
this session.
MR. SNOW expressed concern with the proposed CS, as it would
require paddle boaters to pay a disproportionate amount relative to
their safety requirements. Paddle boaters account for less than
one-third of the boating fatalities. Furthermore, many paddle
boaters have more than one craft. He mentioned that one of the
original arguments for the implementation of a state boating safety
law is that it would cost the boater no more than would be paid to
the Coast Guard if the bill was not passed. The language in the
original bill and the proposed CS would require the boater to pay
$24 for each certificate renewal, rather than the Coast Guard's
proposed $16 renewal fee. The proposed CS would cause a new group
of people to pay $24; those people aren't currently burdened with
the cost of paperwork registration. Furthermore, an owner of
multiple boats would pay more.
MR. SNOW commented that the maximum penalty for nonregistration is
set at $500; even the family bringing out the canoe once every five
years would be required to comply. Mr. Snow stated that placing
non-motorized boats on the same level as motorized boats is unfair.
Those states, fewer than 25, that require registration of
non-motorized boats have a sliding fee scale. If the proposed CS
is implemented, the non-motorized boat fees would be among the
highest in the nation. In conclusion, Mr. Snow indicated that a
bill should be passed that would tackle Alaska's boating safety
record, but it should be done fairly, reasonably, and without
unnecessary burden to the Alaskan boaters.
CHAIR MASEK reminded Mr. Snow that he could send any written
testimony to the sponsor's office. She noted that the bill also
would be heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 2120
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thanked the last two testifiers for their
comments, noting that the bill will go to the House Finance
Standing Committee, as well. He said he believes that the fee is
the same as that required by the U.S. Coast Guard, with the
exception, as pointed out, of the renewal fee of $16; he said they
could look at that, as well as other concerns. Representative
Hudson indicated it would be minimal effort to administer a
registration program so that somebody lost at sea could be found.
Number 2200
JOHN GLASS, Colonel, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection, Department of Public Safety, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he has spent 26 years as
an Alaska State Trooper, stationed from Ketchikan to Bethel. He
has spent countless hours and numerous days searching for bodies
and people who have been lost overboard in boating fatalities. He
looks at this bill as training and education. Colonel Glass said
he has met with Jim Stratton, Director of the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and they
have agreed on the working mechanisms of this bill. Colonel Glass
indicated he had distributed a list of instructors trained recently
back East to do the boating safety and education. He said he
strongly supports this bill, and he respectively requests that it
be passed on for further consideration.
Number 2310
ROGER MacCAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Homer, speaking
primarily as a private citizen and boat owner. However, he works
for the DNR's Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation as a
district ranger for the southern Kenai Peninsula, including
Kachemak Bay, Deep Creek and Anchor River; as such, he has been
involved in many search-and-rescue operations, mostly body
recoveries. He urged passage of this bill in concept, indicating
the state needs the money to educate people in order to prevent
loss of life. Mr. MacCampbell noted that he is involved with most
of the folks who are trying to put this together to satisfy all the
interests, and he believes there have been numerous good
suggestions that day. He concluded by saying this bill will save
Alaskan lives.
Number 2392
MIKE FOLKERTS, Member, Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of that
council, which was formed in December 1998 as a second step in
implementing a comprehensive boating safety program for Alaska. He
told members that the first step was when Governor Knowles created
the Office of Boating Safety within the DNR. The third step will
be the passage of an Alaska safe boating law that meets the federal
guidelines. Once a law is passed and Alaska becomes eligible for
full federal funding, the council will be able to help develop a
boating safety program that will reduce accidents and casualties,
and make boating safer and more enjoyable for Alaskans.
MR. FOLKERTS advised members that the council represents a diverse
constituency of boaters, as well as marine dealers, the U.S. Coast
Guard Auxiliary, and rural health providers. After their first
meeting on January 28, 1999, they targeted education as the number
one priority to achieve their goals. The council is committed to
safe boating in Alaska. With this legislation, Alaska could take
advantage of a program that will save lives.
TAPE 99-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
BARRIE SWAIN testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
expressing full support for the bill. [Mr. Swain's testimony was
not recorded, except for his statement of support, due to a
recorder malfunction.]
Number 0080
STEVE MORGHEIM, Executive Director, Alaska Marine Dealers
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
specifying that he was speaking on behalf of that association,
although he is also interim co-chair of the Alaska Boating Safety
Advisory Council and publisher of Alaska Boating Magazine. He
commended Mr. Stratton and Mr. Johnson of DNR for their proactive
work on this matter.
MR. MORGHEIM said this legislation is of strategic interest to the
Alaska Marine Dealers Association; members contribute millions of
dollars annually in economic benefit to the state's economy,
providing hundreds of jobs to state residents. "Thus, we are
always concerned when regulations are proposed that have the
potential to negatively impact this industry, no matter how worthy
the cause, especially as is boating safety, ... which we are all in
favor of," he stated. Mr. Morgheim said that for the number of
boats being used in Alaska, as well as across the country, figures
from the National Marine Manufacturers Association show that
boating has probably never been safer, although any one death is
still too many.
MR. MORGHEIM expressed concern that their customers perhaps could
be kept off the water through access issues, and he specified that
they support the proposed CS. He stated, "Also, the fact that the
council has been empowered to speak in favor of, to some degree,
power boaters, and have input into the regulations, we think is
very important. So, we would say that the substitute is our
preference, and if it were to changed back to the original, it
would cause us a problem."
MR. MORGHEIM said he had asked the association's members to review
this bill, as they deal with the customers, and Mr. Todd Brandon
(ph), owner of Burkeshore Marina, had brought up a couple of
points. For example, what documentation is required to register
currently owned boats? And is a serial number required? If so,
boats prior to 1980 were not required to display a serial number.
Mr. Morgheim offered to send those to the committee in writing. A
further suggestion, submitted to Eddie Grasser, staff to Chair
Masek, is that the definition of "boat dealer" should be the one in
the Alaska Marine Dealers Association bylaws; Mr. Morgheim said
that definition was taken directly from the regulations of the
Texas board of fish and wildlife.
MR. MORGHEIM agreed that because they are dealing here with human
behavior, not mechanical defect, education is the way to go. He
asked whether it would be possible to include something about
boating safety in the curricula through the Department of Education
at some point. He agreed with the testifier from Seward that the
exclusion of boats being used for commercial purposes isn't
appropriate. Finally, he asked whether the bill takes into account
problems that could come up with companies that rent boats; for
example, a tourist could come to town, rent a boat, and be put out
on the water with absolutely no provisions.
Number 0499
SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Coordinator, United States Coast Guard,
came forward to respond to two items mentioned by Mr. Morgheim.
First, the hull identification number - otherwise known as the boat
serial number - is required on a boat in order to register. She
stated, "What we do with boats that don't have those, or have
partials, or where their numbers have been destroyed, we issue
those from our office; and that's a simple matter of a log that we
add one more number to, basically, and we then send that back out,
with the registration, to the boat owner, and they inscribe that in
their hull. And that's the same, basically, as a vehicle
identification number on an automobile."
MS. HARGIS said the other issue is rental vessels. Under current
regulations, in place since 1958, it is the rental agency's
requirement to equip boats appropriately, which is a reasonable
requirement of any rental agency.
Number 0559
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON responded to Mr. Morgheim's suggestion that
the Department of Education be included, stating, "We have not
listed any and all connections that the council and that the
department can use in implementing this program. ... We're clearly
going to relate this to boating safety and education, and I think
that you'll find that the Department of Education and our school
system will become one of the most valuable outlets and outreach
points for educating youngsters, particularly, in wearing life
jackets and safe boat operation. So, even though we haven't listed
it, it clearly is our intention that they be included. And thank
you."
Number 0629
KATHY O'GARA, Member, Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of the
concept of the bill. She stated, "We are very concerned about the
Alaska drowning rate and how high it is here; and we see that this
bill will help lower avoidable deaths of Alaskans and will also
bring in a great deal of money. And in times of the budget cuts,
right now, this money will hopefully help the education."
Number 0689
ERIC DOWNEY, Knik Canoers and Kayers, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage, noting that his organization is an Anchorage-based
non-motorized boating club with about 330 households registered as
members; approximately one-third of their yearly budget is spent on
safety and education, to try to prevent drownings and other
accidents for non-motorized boaters. He stated:
We can't do it all ourselves. We try; we spend $2-3,000 a
year. Fairbanks boaters try. The Alaska Boating Association
also does their part. But there needs to be a coordinated
effort. I hate to say this, but we need more government.
[There was laughter.] I really do hate to say that .... We do
need some help, and I think ... this law is a very good way to
go about doing it.
There are a couple [of] reservations. Our board of directors
will be meeting tomorrow night, so we'll get some definitive
written comments to Representative Hudson after that. But
speaking for the club, without the approval of the directors,
I'd just like to say ... that the law is important, and please
don't let any small issues get in the way of passing the law.
MR. DOWNEY agreed with the Fairbanks Paddlers that owners of
non-motorized boats would carry a bigger burden on this, because
the boats are less expensive and people really do have a lot of
little boats; he cited his father-in-law as an example. He
suggested that with a little thought, and maybe two or three extra
sentences in this bill, these people could be accommodated. Mr.
Downey acknowledged the importance of having a permanently affixed
number on the boat, to help with body identification and maybe
rescue. He suggested, however, that perhaps each household could
register its non-motorized boats and permanently affix it or clip
it onto one boat or another boat, rather than registering four or
five different boats.
MR. DOWNEY concluded, "Personally, I'd like to say please go ahead
with the law, and I'd have to mimic Jerry George's comments about
an advisory board should be just that - an advisory board. If
you're going to give an advisory board veto power, please call it
a board of directors or some other way to clarify their status.
Personally, I don't think they should have the veto power; I'd like
to see that removed. Also, ... a lower renewal fee might be nice,
but money's not a very big issue, except apparently to some people,
some commercial boaters, with that exemption in there for
commercial boaters. I hate to see any little special-interest
exemption in there." He restated that they would be providing
formal comments to Representative Hudson.
Number 0928
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked whether Mr. Downey feels that the
legislation should apply to new purchases of kayaks and canoes, or
to all individuals who currently possess them.
MR. DOWNEY replied, "Well, I see the purpose of the law as to, one,
generate some funds and organization to education people and, two,
to promote safety and maybe offset some of the funding for rescues.
And because of that, ... personally I think it would be important
to go back and nail all those existing boat owners, rather than
just people who own new boats."
MR. DOWNEY noted that his organization has received more than a
couple of memorial funds as direct requests from relatives and
friends of people who have died in boating accidents; he believes
they come to his organization because they have no other
alternative. There is no vehicle for boating safety in this state,
despite the importance of boating in Alaska, particularly in rural
areas with few roads.
Number 1056
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed hope that Mr. Downey would
reference his last remarks in his written comments. He pointed out
that the legislature has sometimes established funds, such as the
Alaska children's trust fund, where money can be donated by
corporations or individuals. That could be looked at actively, not
necessarily in this bill but perhaps separately.
Number 1127
PAUL DONHEFFNER, Director, Oregon State Marine Board, came forward
in support of HB 108, noting that he has been director for 16
years. In addition, he was there representing the Western States
Boating Administrators Association (WSBAA), an association of state
agencies that do boating safety throughout the western United
States, including Hawaii and the Pacific islands; he is past
president of WSBAA and has served on a number of their committees.
He is also current vice president of the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA), the counterpart for the
regional organization; he said he was there representing NASBLA
president Bill Engfer, the Boating Law Administrator for the state
of Wisconsin, who has submitted written comments. Mr. Donheffner
stated:
We're here today to support this legislation. We consider it
to be extremely important because it allows the state of
Alaska to steer its own course for boating safety. In looking
across the western states and the nation, there are a variety
of different approaches that individual states have taken to
achieve boating safety for their citizens, but with the common
goal of promoting boating safety. And that's what brings us
together as boating administrators, to share ideas, to share
common knowledge and lessons learned of how to make boating
safer for all of us people. As I said, no two states are
alike; each has its own way of doing things. There is no
one-size-fits-all approach to boating safety, and certainly
the interventions that you need in Alaska may be different
than what has worked in other states.
But we work together to share ideas, and that's why we're here
today to support ... your bill. Both WSBAA and NASBLA have
gone on record, through formal resolutions, in support of the
state of Alaska to assist in development of a new program.
We're not here to tell you what to do, but we are available to
share the lessons we've learned and our collective knowledge
of boating safety, boat registration programs, safety
education, and marine law enforcement efforts. Chances are
good that we've been there, done that in the past, and we're
willing and able to assist you in your efforts to create a new
program here in Alaska.
I'd like to share that state boating safety programs have
proved to be very effective in reducing boating accidents and
fatalities. Using funds from registration fees, the states
have been able to leverage matching federal funds from the
Coast Guard to produce very, very cost-effective state boating
safety interventions.
I'd like to just share with you our experience in Oregon.
Back in the 1960s, Oregon experienced its worst year for
boating fatalities in 1967, with 53 fatalities that year; we
had 50,000 registered boats at the time. Now, as a result of
safety interventions in the 1970s, when registrations were
over 100,000, we were able to reduce the number of fatalities
to [31.5] per year. By the '80s, we'd increased another
50,000 vessels, to 150,000; we dropped ... the death rate to
22.7 a year. And in the '90s, with nearly 200,000 boats,
we've cut accidents even further, to an average of 15.3 deaths
per year. Essentially, since 1970, we've doubled the number
of boats in the state and cut our fatalities in half.
I think ... that's the kind of results that you can see in the
state of Alaska with an active state program that's out there
promoting education, promoting other creative interventions on
behalf of your citizens. Other states have had similar
experiences in reducing boating accidents and providing
improved services for their boaters as a result of the
registration revenue that they get from taking this program
over and the establishment of these programs. In 1961, the
national fatality rate was 20.8 deaths per 100,000 boats; by
1975, state interventions had cut that rate to under 10 deaths
per 100,000 boats; and in 1996, the rate was at an all-time
low of 5.6 per 100,000. ... That is all largely attributable
to the fact that we've had active state programs, sharing
information, sharing knowledge and ... putting those federal
dollars to work to effectively serve our citizens with safety
education programs.
Now, one last thing I'd like to share, because I know that
Oregon's legislature is frequently skeptical of federal
programs, and I'm sure that it's no different here in Alaska,
however, I would like to share with you that we don't view the
assumption of boat registration as a federal mandate. I
think, instead, you should look at it as an opportunity to
generate state revenue to support state boating programs that
you can use here for Alaskans. And coupled with the matching
Coast Guard grants, it's a win-win for states. It's been a
win-win for everyone else, and ... we would encourage you to
take advantage of that opportunity, as well.
Finally, I'd like to share that in terms of the federal
oversight on that program, the grant program, it's been our
experience that there's very little federal meddling in how
the state directs those boating safety dollars. I know in our
state we decide where those federal dollars are spent, whether
it's for safety, law enforcement or the like. And I think I
can speak fairly for NASBLA and the other states in telling
you that that is not a problem. So, receipt of those federal
funds is not a problem.
We're very supportive of your program. I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you might have this afternoon. And as an
outsider, it's been very interesting observing your process
here in this hearing this afternoon.
Number 1455
BARBARA SANDS, District Commodore, 17th District Coast Guard
Auxiliary, came forward to testify, noting that she is also a
recreational boater, having boated in Prince William Sound for ten
years. She read from written comments, as follows:
As a boater and the District Commodore of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary, I am here to support boating safety legislation.
As a member of the Twenty-first [Alaska] State Legislature,
you have the unique opportunity to join the rest of the nation
in giving the people of Alaska, through elected
representatives, the right of self-determination in laws
regulating recreational boating activities.
The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary has a proud tradition
and a history of 60 years of providing civilian support to the
United States Coast Guard. The primary missions of the
Auxiliary in support of the United States Coast Guard are in
boating safety education, safety and search-and-rescue
patrols, courtesy boat safety examinations and many other
activities. The 17th [Coast Guard District] encompasses the
entire state of Alaska. In Alaska, the Auxiliary has 370
volunteers who contributed over 30,000 hours in 1998 in
service and support of recreational boating safety activities
for their fellow Alaskans; that's a lot of hours. ...
The legislation being consider by you will provide Alaskans
the same basic recreational boating safety regulations as
enjoyed by the recreational boaters in the other 49 states.
By conforming to minimum federal standards, you can provide
... Alaskans with direct federal funding and improve our
ability to reduce the extremely high accident and fatality
rate in this state.
Our waters are considered some of the most hazardous in the
nation because of the extreme cold water temperature. Yet on
many of our lakes and rivers, there is not even the basic
requirement to have a life jacket on a vessel, let alone to
wear one. Life jackets are not just safety issues in Alaska
- they are survival issues. Most of our boaters that died
last year in boating fatalities were not wearing life jackets.
Many of those people would still be here with us today, had
they been wearing one.
Statistics have shown us that when other states have enacted
boating safety legislation, ... they have seen significant
reductions in accidents and fatalities. When the federal
government enacted legislation in 1988, regulating safety
standards for the commercial fishing industry, we in Alaska
also saw a reduction in our commercial fishermen's fatalities.
When the state enacted legislation requiring children under
the age of 13 to wear life jackets when on boats, that also
helped. I talked with a state trooper in the Bethel area, and
by enforcing laws requiring the children to wear life jackets,
he saw a drastic reduction of fatalities in his area of
operations in the first year that that law had been passed.
Safe boating laws, and a little enforcement, have significant
results in reducing accidents and fatalities.
The Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council has prioritized the
goals for Alaska and determined the highest priority as
education. We in the Coast Guard Auxiliary have in place an
infrastructure for taking an excellent boating safety program
to the people who need it most - the boaters. Too often,
fishermen and hunters fail to remember that they, too, are
boaters. A combination of state funds and federal grants from
the Coast Guard will provide resources now not available, to
develop and maintain a viable program that, in our opinion,
will successfully reduce fatalities, injuries and property
damage.
We, as Alaskans and as a group of volunteers, are passionately
dedicated to boating safety. We enthusiastically support the
boating legislation that will help to decrease our drowning
rate and at least offer the opportunity to bring it in line
with other states. We look forward to partnering with the
state of Alaska and with other organization that are involved
in recreational boating safety to save lives in our state.
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether they are currently involved
with education within the various Alaska communities.
MS. SANDS replied, "Yes, we are."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that there are four lakes in his
district, in Anchorage. Part of the problem he sees is
communicating with fire departments about access. He asked, "Are
you doing anything, or have you heard of anything like that,
working with fire departments and neighbors to allow for access in
case of emergencies?"
MS. SANDS answered, "No, I haven't, but it's something that we can
address to our members ... around the state, and see if they can
work with the other agencies."
Number 1740
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health and Emergency Medical
Services, Division of Public Health, Department or Health and
Social Services, came forward. He told members, "We consider this
to be a public health issue, and we support this legislation."
CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify; Sue Hargis
from the Coast Guard said she would submit written testimony and
offered to answer any questions.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move the CS for HB 108
[version 1-LS0445\M, Ford, 3/26/99] out of committee with
individual recommendations and the attached positive fiscal
note(s). He thanked the sponsor for this good piece of
legislation.
CHAIR MASEK asked whether there was any objection. Hearing none,
she announced that CSHB 108(TRA) was moved out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee. She noted that it would be
further heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the
House Finance Standing Committee.
CHAIR MASEK adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. but brought the
meeting back to order, as Mr. Morgheim spoke up via teleconference.
MR. MORGHEIM said his comments had nothing to do with HB 108, but
he wanted to point out that Alaska is one of the very few states
that lacks boat titling. He suggested that the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) be asked whether there is a way for boat titling to
be enacted, which he suggested would help the banking community,
the dealers and the industry.
CHAIR MASEK noted that Juanita Hensley from the DMV was present.
Number 1878
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Director's Office, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, responded, "With a
motor vehicle, you get a manufacturer's certificate of origin at
the time that the vehicle is manufactured. The manufacturing
company issues what they call an 'MSO' or 'MCO,' and that is the
original quasi-title to that vehicle. Then it's turned over to the
states, and we issue a state title that goes along with that
vehicle until you've paid the lien off or until you sell it and
then it goes to another person." She said she doesn't know whether
boat manufacturers have that type of documentation, a certificate
of origin; if so, perhaps the DMV could look at that down the road.
Number 1926
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked that Mr. Morgheim contact his office
regarding the perceived needs, as that may be something they could
address in another piece of legislation, if there is a good public
purpose.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|