Mr. CORRADO. The main purpose is for identification, and as long as they are numbered, it seems to me that we could identify the vessel for whatever reason we might want.

Bob, do you know how their numbering works?

Captain NORRIS. No, I do not.

Mr. CORRADO. What is the cutoff? Is it all vessels, I wonder, or just those propelled by machinery?

Captain NORRIS. No, I do not know.

Mr. CORRADO. That is something I believe we should find out.
Mr. PELLY. Would you yield?

Wouldn't we do well, also, to find out what Canada has done in the way of safety regulations? It might be that we could learn something from the Canadians which would protect our own boats when they are in marinas alongside the Canadians, and vice versa.

Mr. CORRADO. Mr. Pelly, when we get back to Washington, I will call the Canadian Embassy.

Captain NORRIS. May I comment on that, sir?

Mr. PELLY. Yes.

Captain NORRIS. We can provide the committee with the Canadian regulations. We have those.

Their law insofar as standards is concerned is very broad, and somewhat similar to what we are seeking in this particular piece of legislation. They have not implemented very much of the authority which has been given to them, and as a matter of fact, we are working with Canada and had representatives from Coast Guard Headquarters recently attending safe powering trials in the Town of Picton, which I believe is in Ontario, where the industry of both the United States and the industry of Canada with the two government agencies involved got together and observed safe powering trials.

We are working very closely with the Canadian authorities in this area, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Captain.

(The information supplied in response to the above, may be found on page 319.)

Mr. BUXTON. In regard to that question, if I may, you asked whether providing numbers for all boats would be an administrative problem. I am sure it would be, because there are all types and sizes, but if there was a cutoff, I would think maybe 10 feet would be closer to it, because sailboats, the Penquins and OK dinghies, and a lot of them that they actually sail within the sound and throughout the lake, many of them I think should be identified. If a cutoff was made, I would recommend 10 feet, perhaps.

Mr. CLARK. But you will not say that it would be an unnecessary function and administrative burden?

Mr. BUXTON. I don't think so.

Mr. CLARK. It would be a necessary thing. It might cost a little more money, but it would be well worth it, and would not be unnecessary? Mr. BUXTON. Yes, sir. I think it would be well worth it.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. BUXTON. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. We have as our last witness Mr. Rittenhouse, but I was wondering if anybody in the audience would care to be heard at this time concerning H.R. 15041.

Bob, we are very happy to have you with us. We are glad that we are going to conclude our hearings with you because we know you are going to give us some good material to digest when we go back to Washington.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, in the Pacific Northwest we are used to Oregon having the last word.

STATEMENT OF R. F. RITTENHOUSE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, STATE MARINE BOARD, AGRICULTURE BUILDING, SALEM, OREG.

Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Clark, Congressman Pelly, Mr. Corrado. I will proceed with my statement.

My name is Robert F. Rittenhouse, and I am director of the Oregon State Marine Board with headquarters in Salem, Oreg. I am also president of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. My appearance here today is in the role of a State administrator.

At a hearing in Washington, D.C., Congressman John Dellenback, of Oregon, introduced a number of amendments in behalf of our national association, and our association will propose several additional amendments at your final hearings in Washington, D.C.

The State boating law administrators have a great deal of interest in and a stake in this legislation. As Congressman Dellenback so aptly stated at the March 24 hearing:

The State Boating Law Administrator*** will actually be the grass roots of any national boating safety program which Congress might conceive.

The Federal Government's jurisdiction is limited to the navigable. waters of the United States. The States have concurrent jurisdiction on those waters and sole jurisdiction on waters which are strictly State waters. There are more boats being operated on those waters which are under sole jurisdiction of the States than on those waters over which the Federal Government and the States share responsibility.

The States' responsibility in administering the boating laws puts the State administrator in much closer contact with the boating public than the Federal Government. For these reasons we ask your favorable consideration of the Dellenbeck amendments which the State of Oregon supports.

Several months ago Secretary of Transportation John Volpe submitted to the State Governors a copy of H.R. 15041. Oregon's Governor Tom McCall responded in support of the Dellenback amendments. On May 22, Secretary Volpe, in a letter to Governor McCall, agreed that in general the Dellenback amendments (with several exceptions) were good amendments and there would be no objections to their being adopted.

It is these several exceptions about which we are concerned and about which I would like to speak today.

Section 6. Prescribing Regulations and Standards: On page 7, after subparagraph (4), the Dellenback amendment recommends adding a new subsection.

(5) Provide a statement indicating the reasons and considerations in formulating and prescribing regulations and standards pursuant to Section 5 of this Act.

The Secretary in his letter of May 22, 1970, indicated that the Department of Transportation believed that the safeguards listed in the previous subsections were sufficient to provide information for public

use.

Regarding our suggestion for adding a required statement of reasons to section 8, the issue largely revolves around the legal niceties of the Administrative Procedure Act. I shall try to illustrate by way of example.

The boating waters in Oregon are in some respects unique, particularly regarding our ocean bar situation, where fishermen congregate and where conditions can be treacherous. Let us say that a manufacturer standard for flotation or buoyancy, or something similar, is promulgated under H.R. 15041 and typically, applies to all boatbuilders throughout the Nation.

In general, it is a good standard and promotes safety. However, due to our peculiar conditions it has the opposite effect; regarding boats made locally for our waters, it impairs safety; it is not needed, and it is therefore unreasonable.

There are, admittedly, various ways that this situation can be communicated to the Secretary, including the Advisory Council, appeal for a section 9 exception, et cetera. However, if these are unavailing, our only recourse (or that of an Oregan boatbuilder) is the

courts.

But the burden in seeking to modify or challenge a standard is an impossible one, for the reason that we would not have any information regarding exactly what determinations were made in accord with section 6 requirements-absent some written statement.

That is, section 6 merely requires the administrator to say, "I considered these matters." The fact that a standard is unworkable or unreasonable is not grounds for challenge. Absent a written statement regarding the considerations, no outsider could ever know-let alone prove whether the considerations of section 6 were adequate, appropriate, germane, et cetera.

What we are asking for, simply, is a written statement justifying the standard in accord with the considerations required in section 6 or that we or, prospectively, a court can decide for ourselves.

The Administrative Procedure Act does not require such a statement, particularly of executive agencies; and publication of standards and regulations in the Federal Register is inadequate.

On the other hand, by suggesting a written statement requirement be added to the language of section 6, we have carefully chosen the words so as not to require a cumbersome, delaying and bureaucratic formal hearing with transcript (as the Administrative Procedure Act requires of most agencies.) This would not serve our purposes or yours or our mutual concern for improving boating safety. I trust the above explanation is adequate.

Another of the Dellenback amendments with which the Secretary of Transportation has indicated he does not concur is section 10.

Section 10. Federal preemption: The Dellenback amendment proposes that on page 8, line 17, after "Act" the following should be inserted. ", except for such detached safety equipment a State may require to meet unusual conditions."

The Secretary indicated that he believed this would destroy one of the fundamental principles of this act, uniformity. The Secretary further indicated that he believed there was sufficient authority in section 9 and the opening clause of section 10 to provide a basis for a State to require additional equipment to meet unusual conditions upon application to the Secretary of Transportation, and that he did not wish to see any amendment which would give the States the authority to write performance standards which could apply to the manufacturer of said associated equipment.

We are concerned with the language of the printed bill as it preempts the States' rights to prescribe additional portable safety equipment aboard a boat beyond the Federal minimum requirements. It is believed that the safety consideration of peculiarly local situations necessitates such additional flexibility in State regulations.

An example of this is that Federal regulations do not require a boat to carry an anchor or anchor line; however, on some waters this would be an important piece of safety equipment.

It is certainly not our intention to write performance standards or to rupture uniformity. If the Department of Transportation would widen its list of approved equipment to include such items as anchors, paddles, et cetera, all of which are recommended by the Coast Guard as good additional safety equipment-but not required by law-then I see no reason why the Dellenback amendment could not be further amended to read "except for such detached Coast Guard approved safety equipment a State may require to meet unusual conditions."

Another example which specifically refers to Oregon is that we require fire extinguishers on all motorboats. Federal regulations exempt boats of open construction less than 26 feet in length unless the boat is carrying passengers for hire.

The method of determining whether or not a pleasure boat less than 26 feet in length is required to carry a fire extinguisher can be confusing to some boatowners.

We feel that the safety of persons aboard a pleasure boat-the family or friends-is certainly as important as those on board a passenger-carrying boat of the same size. Accordingly, Oregon would not like to see its good law erased by enactment of this law without amend

ments.

In conclusion, I would like to speak briefly in regard to the Boating Safety Advisory Council provided for in section 33. We feel that this is one of the most desirable features of this bill and provides for a working partnership in the field of boating safety.

As the State boating law administrators will carry a lion's share of the burden in administering this act, we ask that at least one-third of the members on this council be State boating law administrators. You may note that the language of the printed bill refers to State officials, and quite conceivably at some time State officials having little or no interest in boating safety could be seated on this council.

There is a need for a new Federal boating act. I sincerely hope that H.R. 15041 will include the Dellenback amendments and that your committee will give careful consideration to the additional amendments which the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators will propose in your final hearings in Washington,

D.C.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, I would like to depart from this prepared statement and say that then it has been 12 years since the Bonner Act was enacted and the Bonner Act made provisions for the States to become uniform.

This has been an impossible situataion. After 12 years the States are not uniform and I personally do not believe that they will become uniform in their registration requirements and equipment requirements until we have a good strong Federal Boating Act and this is a very good bill.

There have been amendments proposed. I am sure that you gentlemen can sift out the good from the bad. When they-we need this bill, we need this act and I hope that there is no delay in getting it through the Congress.

Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Bob.

Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. I don't want to raise any questions, I just want to agree with your feeling that John Dellenback has carefully studied this matter and has come up with suggestions which I know are going to be considered.

I have worked with your Representative, John Dellenback, in committees. I consider him extremely able and a very competent legislator. I appreciate your calling these amendments that he has proposed to our attention.

I am sure that the members of the committee will consider them. Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Congressman Dellenback represents the Fourth District and about 15 percent of the boats registered in Oregon are in Congressman Dellenback's district. It has come to his attention that the lack of uniformity among the States and I will mention the State of Washington here becomes a hardship on the boat owner who wants to visit our State because they do not comply with our registration laws.

Our State has a problem going into California. They have or Idaho and Nevada because we are not in compliance with their laws and for the good of the boat owner we have to have a strong Federal boating act which this will provide, and particularly in the uniformity that it will bring about to permit the boat owners to move from State to State without being harassed and regardless of what people say they are being harassed because there is not uniformity of States.

Mr. PELLY. Did the State of Oregon follow through on the Bonner Act and pass their own small boat law?

Mr. RITTEN HOUSE. Yes, sir. The State of Oregon in 1959 enacted a State boating act by provision of the Federal Boating Act and created the Oregon State Marine Board to administer the act which is our sole duty and this is our primary responsibility.

Mr. PELLY. Was one of your problems that although the State of Oregon passed a boating act the State of Washington did not?

Mr. RITTEN HOUSE. Yes, it does create a problem because we share interstate waters, the Columbia River and the Snake River. It does present problems in registration. It presents problems in accident reporting. We, in Oregon, and I am sure that Idaho shares this with us, would here very much like to see the State of Washington enact a law.