HB 108 - USE, REGULATION, AND OPERATION OF BOATS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 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." CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Bill Hudson, sponsor of the bill. Number 0998 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, announced that there is a committee substitute that needs to be adopted for discussional purposes. Number 1028 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the committee substitute for HB 108, 1-LS0445\N, Ford, 4/6/99, as a working document. There being no objection, it was so moved. Number 1048 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated HB 108 would establish a comprehensive boating safety program in Alaska. He has wanted the state for the last six years to adopt its own boating safety program. Part of the reason for the deaths is because the state does not have any concerted effort to try to educate and develop a program to provide for the safe operation of small boats in the state. Alaska is the only state that doesn't have such a program. The bill would transfer the responsibilities and regulatory authority over boat safety equipment and other requirements from the United States Coast Guard to the state of Alaska. The state would assume vessel registration. It would be done by the Division of Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] using their current registration systems. The bill would also authorize boat dealers to register boats at the point-of-sale for convenience. The bill would also mandate that boats in state waters be equipped with the requirements currently required by the coast guard. The coast guard has been in the lifesaving business for hundreds of years and it has determined that there is a minimal set of equipment for various kinds of boats that are most likely to prevent the loss of life and the boat. He cited fire extinguishers, personal flotation devices or life jackets, sound producing devices, backfire flame protectors, ventilation, and visual distress signals as examples. The bill would expand the current coast guard requirement to carry those types of safety equipment on all waters within the state adding some small streams and lakes that are not currently covered by the coast guard. Even though there aren't that many, deaths do occur in those waters. In addition, because the state does not have its own safety program that complies with the federal Safe Boating Act of 1971, the state is losing its share of the federal marine fuel taxes that the people are paying. Currently, about $500,000 is being collected and sent outside. By initiating a safety program, that money would stay in the state along with about $600,000 in program receipts annually. The goal is to concentrate on boating safety education. The charges would be identical to those required and assessed by the coast guard. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that Charles Hosack from the Division of Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] and Robert Nauheim from the Department of Law are available for technical or legal questions. Number 1421 JIM STRATTON, Director, Central Office, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He declared that the department supports the bill and the committee substitute. Number 1449 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton whether he is responsible for publishing the booklet entitled, "Alaska Boater's Handbook". MR. STRATTON replied yes. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how often is it published. MR. STRATTON replied it has been published once. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how often he anticipates it will be published. MR. STRATTON replied the goal is to publish it once a year to allow for updates. The goal is to also give it away for free. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Stratton how much did it cost to publish it and how many were published. MR. STRATTON replied about 42,000 were published. It cost less than 50 cents each. In total, it cost about $20,000 to $21,000. Number 1515 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to a booklet entitled, "Boating Safety Dollars at Work", and noted that there isn't a section on Alaska. She asked Mr. Stratton whether it's correct to say that none of the money came from federal dollars. MR. STRATTON replied that is correct. Alaska does not have a federally recognized boating safety program, therefore, it doesn't have any federal dollars to put into it. The money came from the state budget. Number 1554 MIKE FOLKERTS, Member, Alaska Boating Safety Advisory Council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He declared his support of the bill. Number 1579 JEFFERY JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He has been working with the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation for 18 years. He has been a coastal field park ranger and has seen his share of tragedies. In 1997, almost one-third of the fatalities in the state were in or adjacent to state park units. He also has a great deal of personal interest in boating safety. Number 1618 SUE HARGIS, Boating Safety Coordinator, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, United States Coast Guard, Department of Defense, testified in Juneau. The responsibility and opportunity for the states to manage their own boating safety program was first passed to them in 1958. The mechanism to fund those programs was passed in 1971 with the federal Boating Safety Act. It formed the mechanism that takes the boating fuel tax monies and distributes them to the states. The monies from Alaska get distributed to all the other states. All the other states and territories have implemented boating safety programs, except for Alaska. The last state to take a program on was New Hampshire in 1988. The program started out with a $35 million appropriation from the federal treasury through the Highway Trust Fund as an annual appropriation. It is now at $55 million as a permanent appropriation. For fiscal year 1999 through 2003 $59 million through $71 million have been appropriated. The monies have been steadily increasing due in part to an organization called the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, a coalition that fights for boating laws. In response to why Alaska should do this, 50 percent of the fatalities that happen in the state are in areas where there is no coast guard presence; 30 percent of the fatalities happen on non-navigable waterways where the coast guard absolutely doesn't have a presence, and where there are not any safety equipment requirements. Between 1989 and 1998, 266 Alaskans lost their lives in noncommercial boating accidents compared to 225 commercial fatalities. The program works. In 1971, there were 29 fatalities per 100,000 boats nationally. Now, there are under seven. Alaska is not following that trend, however. On behalf of the admiral, she expressed the coast guard's support of the state taking on such a program. How that is done is up to the legislature, however. In response to the non-motorized registration issue, the coast guard does not have a formal position on that. It would provide more funding for the state match. The coast guard requires registration of vessels equipped with motorized propulsion, although 30 percent of the fatalities are in non-motorized vessels. It is important to include some type of minimum length requirement to exclude all the Fred Meyer and K-Mart rafts. The state right now already meets the match requirements in good faith because it is working towards a program. The Governor established an office of boating safety in July within the Department of Natural Resources. She noted it is a reimbursement program. The money is trickled in as the office spends money that which matches the requirements. In response to the boating safety council issue, it is not part of the federal requirements. The federal requirements are a lead agency, some kind of law enforcement, and education. The state already has those requirements. The state would have to take on mirroring the safety equipment requirements, registering boats, and reporting of accidents. The council has been asked for by the voters, and several states have a council of some kind. She suggested limiting the number of meetings, for example, otherwise it can provide valuable user input. Number 1904 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she has had a lot of contact regarding the inclusion of non-motorized vessels. She asked Ms. Hargis, if the length was increased from 10 feet to 20 feet in terms of registration, would that take them out of the safety portion of the program as well. MS. HARGIS replied that would essentially exclude almost all non-motorized vessels from registration, but not from the safety requirements. She reiterated one-third of the fatalities are due to non-motorized crafts. Number 1961 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis whether there is about $600,000 now in program receipts through licensing fees. MS. HARGIS replied, right, through boat registration revenues. Right now, those revenues are paid to the coast guard which in turn hands them off to the federal treasury. The coast guard here in Alaska doesn't even get to keep them. The state would see roughly that $600,000 and another $500,000 from the Boating Safety Federal Grant Fund. Number 1993 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis how much it would cost if the state wanted to keep the same level of safety efforts as the coast guard. In other words, is the money that the state would receive enough to run a program? MS. HARGIS replied the state would get roughly $1 million to run a boating safety program which is a lot of money. Right now, the state doesn't get any money to run one. The coast guard is not stepping back, except that it would not be registering boats anymore. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis whether that includes monitoring as well. MS. HARGIS replied that money would also go to law enforcement, but right now the bill says that 75 percent would go to education. Number 2038 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered what level of effort the state would have to step up. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the state would take over registering boats, currently managed by the coast guard, would undertake a statewide boating safety education commitment, and would manage the program to ensure that all crafts in the state meet the requirements and are registered. Number 2086 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Hargis how much it costs to run a registration program. MS. HARGIS replied the estimate from the Division of Motor Vehicles [Department of Administration] is roughly $300,000. It would be a cost-positive situation. The state's efforts for education and law enforcement currently pass the coast guard's test. The state also has a designated lead agency. There are no more requirements that the state would have to take on to get funding. The coast guards is hoping the money would be spent on education. It is part of the match to get the federal dollars rolling towards the state. Number 2134 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that there would be a net gain of about $600,000 for new programs and enhancement of the public's awareness. Number 2144 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT questioned whether those funds would come from a different source. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied there would be a new source of funds to pay for many of the things that the state currently does. Number 2165 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the non-motorized registration fee was reduced to $10 for three years from $24. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes as a direct response and recognition of the non-motorized kyakers out of Seward and Anchorage. They were concerned about paying the same amount as those who have big boats. Number 2235 MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Community Health and Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, testified in Juneau. The department supports the bill. Drowning is a public health problem. A combination of safety organizations and federal laws have significantly decreased the deaths for commercial fishing. There have also been some efforts from Native organizations that have impacted boating safety as well. The department believes that by bringing these additional funds into the state for safety purposes those trends will continue. Unfortunately, there haven't been similar trends in the recreational categories. In addition, the department monitors costs associated with near drownings, for example, and other types of injuries. He noted that rescues are very expensive and to the extend that legislation like this can help prevent those types of things is a savings. Number 2366 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page 4, line 20, of the bill, and asked why the reporting requirements have been increased from $100 to $500. MS. HARGIS said $500 is the federal reporting requirement. Alaska was well below that requirement at $100. Number 2421 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hargis whether it is part of the reporting triad she mentioned earlier or could the state deal with it at the $100 level. MS. HARGIS replied the state could do it at the $100 level. It would mean that the state would have a more stringent requirement than the coast guard. It is up to the state to decide, however. CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned whether the state could go to a less strict requirement of $1,000, for example. TAPE 99-23, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hargis whether there is a penalty for not reporting an accident. MS. HARGIS replied there is a penalty section in the bill [page 9, line 4]. It is a class A misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the bill would require the courts to establish a bail schedule. Number 0070 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Juanita Hensley [Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration] whether a class A misdemeanor is consistent with penalties for the failure to report vehicular accidents. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the penalty is restricted to $500. The bill reads, "...and may be fined up to $500." CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the bill says the penalty for everything, except that which is contained in (b) [Section 11], would be up to $1,000 plus 6 to 12 months in jail. He is trying to draw some comparisons between the requirements for excess damage to an automobile in excess of $500 and what the bill would do. Number 0119 JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Director's Office, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, noted that if a person fails to file a report and is charged for the failure to file a report through the district attorney's office it is a class A misdemeanor. The division doesn't pursue someone for the failure to report an accident, however. Number 0146 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hensley whether a person needs to file an accident report if there is $8,000 worth of damage, for example, and is that person subject to... MS. HENSLEY responded it is a requirement for a person to file an accident report. The police will report an accident, if it is police investigated and there is more than $500 worth of damage. If two people are involved in an accident that didn't involve the police, the division doesn't have any way of knowing about it, unless one of the parties files a report. They may file an insurance claim or choose to settle it on their own. Number 0205 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Hensley, if there is no injury between two parties and one party sends in a report, what would happen to the other party. MS. HENSLEY replied there is only a requirement for one of the parties to file an accident report. The division uses the report that is filed to make a determination of who is liable. A notice is sent to both parties for proof of insurance, and if they are not insured they lose their drivers' license. Number 0242 CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned whether there are two reports that have to be submitted: proof of insurance and a regular accident/crash report. MS. HENSLEY noted that in many cases both parties file their own reports. If there is conflicting information, the courts make a decision. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted both parties probably file a report for insurances purposes. Number 0275 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether or not registering a boat would be a misdemeanor. It looks like the exceptions in (b) [Section 11] exclude boat registration. Number 0300 MS. HENSLEY said the failure to register a boat would be a class A misdemeanor under this section. She noted that AS 05.25.010 is safety requirements, AS 05.25.020 is the use of boats with water skis and surfboards, and AS 05.25.060 is prohibited operations, which are included in the exceptions in (b). Number 0328 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that AS 05.25.060 (2) and (3) are violations while the failure to register a boat is a misdemeanor. He likes the distinction, but it seems that the failure to register a boat is more like a violation. MS. HENSLEY commented that is probably patterned after Title 28, failure to register a car, which is a class A misdemeanor. She noted that the failure to register a snowmobile is a violation. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, by including kyaks, it becomes a question of how much should the state wax for the failure to register a kyak. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said these are good points that need to be discussed with the drafter of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said it seems that reckless endangerment and things of that nature ought to be a higher penalty than the failure to register a boat. Number 0401 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the establishment of the Alaska Boating Safety Council and said it seems that is heading in the wrong direction of establishing another bureaucracy. He asked whether it is essential; and, if it is, may be some of its responsibilities should be detailed. Number 0424 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied this bill has been discussed with boating organizations and associations which have expressed concern of conferring too much power to the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and the director of the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation absent some type of user involvement. The way it is crafted now is considerate of both the department and users. It sets up the appointed members to the council and no money would be given other than travel and per diem expenses. He said the legislature might want to specify or limit its meeting frequency or limit its activity. He reiterated, if the bill passes, all of the expenses for this operation would be paid for with the fees that the state would receive. It wouldn't require new general fund monies. The council would be a guiding force of reaching the public for education. Number 0525 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Hudson whether there was any discussion on how many times a year it should meet. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied it was discussed and, in general, most felt that twice a year was good. He suspects that the council would be involved in working on the boating safety pamphlet and education proposals. Number 0574 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 5, "Owner's civil liability." He asked where does the liability stop when the owner of a boat rents his boat to another person, for example. Number 0599 ROBERT NAUHEIM, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. As far as he can see from the text, there are only housekeeping changes in Section 5. It doesn't seem to substantively change operator liability. Number 0656 CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony and asked Representative Hudson to incorporate the changes discussed today, especially the issue brought up by Representative Kerttula. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Chairman Kott whether he wants him to look at a meeting-frequency on the council's activity to be put in statute, or under the aegis of the commissioner. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he wants to see it in statute. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Chairman Kott whether two meetings sound reasonable. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied may be it should say a minimum of two, or a maximum of four, or quarterly as necessary based on the general theme of those in the boating safety industry. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, in conclusion, that he has built a very good network so far. It is a balanced network between the motorized and non-motorized boats. In all of the years that he has been involved in boating safety, the area of damage was in the non-motorized areas, such as kyakers. They begin to believe that they are one with the water. He thinks it is good to have an equitable sharing of the cost that needs to be recovered. So far, none of the testimony has indicated a problem with the reduced fare for the non-motorized boats. They are eager to get involved with the safety aspects of the bill, and they have said that small details should not kill the bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill will be held over for further consideration.