HOUSE BILL NO. 93 An Act relating to boating safety; repealing secs. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, and 30, ch. 28, SLA 2000; and providing for an effective date. Co-Chair Williams inquired if the sponsor of the bill wanted to make a statement of clarification regarding the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH noted that the U.S. Coast Guard was present to answer any questions of the Committee. Co-Chair Harris referenced language on Page 2, Section 4, "a boat that is not equipped with mechanical propulsion" and asked if a sailboat of any length would be exempt. TH MICHAEL KENDALL, COMMANDER, CHIEF OF SEARCH & RESCUE, 17 COAST GUARD DISTRICT, JUNEAU, responded that it would be exempt and would not be a problem for the Coast Guard. If the boat had a kicker or dysfunctional motor, it could fall under the provision. Co-Chair Harris questioned why the Coast Guard would want to exempt them. Commander Kendall responded that it does not make a difference to the Coast Guard. Co-Chair Harris acknowledged that it would not be affecting the Coast Guard. Co-Chair Harris asked why the sunset is not being extended so the law remains as currently written. TH MICHAEL SWANSON, 17 COAST GUARD DISTRICT BOATING SAFETY ASSISTANT, JUNEAU, noted that would not be a problem except that it would need to be "revisited" again at the end of that sunset. Co-Chair Harris asked if consideration had been given to extending only the sunset. Representative Weyhrauch advised that the reason he introduced the bill was because of the large presence of the Coast Guard in this region and the requested it. He pointed out that he also had assumed Representative Bill Hudson's seat who supported the legislation. The program demonstrates a positive fiscal impact on Alaska. The law has been proven to save lives. Co-Chair Harris warned that the issue goes beyond the sunset concern and that the bill does indicate some exemptions. He referenced the correspondence from the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), voicing concern regarding the exemptions. (Copy on File). He inquired if it would be better to deal with a "no sunset" provision as the exemptions will end up costing the State money. LINDA SYLVESTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, advised that the exemption is projected to cost the State $30 thousand dollars. She pointed out that the issue of including or not including the motorized boats has become an emotional concern for everyone and suggested that it is a "sensibility issue". Some people feel strongly that it would not be good policy to require registration of boats not used often. Ms. Sylvester added that from the federal perspective, a portion of the proceeds come from motor fuel taxes, which connects it and makes sense that it is a federal regulation. She advised that the priority was to keep the Boating Safety Program in tact. She reiterated that the legislation has picked up heated opposition in the Interior. Co-Chair Harris questioned how the Interior would be affected. Ms. Sylvester mentioned the inclusion requirement for the non-motorized boats. She added that Representative Holm, Chairman for the House Transportation Committee had added that exemption. Representative Stoltze MOVED to AMEND Page 2, Section 3, th changing the effective date to June 30, 2008, making it a five-year effective date and then making the appropriate change to the title. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED for discussion purposes, asking that if the law takes effect immediately, would that be the date used. Representative Weyhrauch explained that it would become effective by signature of the Governor and noted that there is no effective date listed in Section 4. It would be immediate. Co-Chair Harris pointed out that it would require a three- quarter vote otherwise, it would be 90-days from the time of the signature. Representative Hawker asked Representative Stoltze about the amendment and if the current Section 30 would trigger a different repealor, taking effect based on one of two sets of circumstances, either the passage of July 1, 2005 or the 90-days after the signature. He asked if it was the intent th that the repealor trigger only the June 30, 2008 date. Representative Stoltze believed that there was a complicated series of effective dates and that the way in which the bill was drafted reflects that. He hoped that the conceptual amendment was "broad" enough to provide "leeway" for the drafter. PETER ECKLUND, HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, explained that in current law, the sunset st date is July 1, 2005. The conceptual amendment would st change that to July 1, 2008, leaving the second repealor that deals with receipt of the federal receipts. He reiterated that there would still be two mechanisms in place. Representative Stoltze MOVED to AMEND the amendment, st changing the date to July 1, 2010. Co-Chair Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Hawker OBJECTED to ask the sponsor if that would be an acceptable amendment. Representative Weyhrauch replied it would. Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Croft OBJECTED. He disagreed with keeping the bill in its current form with the 2010 date. He emphasized that the bill should not have a sunset as it clearly is saving lives. Representative Croft WITHDREW his OBJECTION and Amendment #1 was ADOPTED. Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 93 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 93 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Department of Administration and a new zero note by the Department of Natural Resources.