If the fine is imposed by the administrative agency and the fine is based upon the language of the statute, if the person fined appeals that fine, he has the burden of proving that is an unreasonable fine. Mr. LENNON. In other words, it is not de novo? Mr. BOGGS. That is right. If the administrator has to comply with this kind of language in the statute, if he does not comply, we would have to assert in the court proceeding why he did not comply. That is what we are driving at. Mr. LENNON. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Our next witness is Robert E. Rittenhouse, and he seems to be accompanied by James O'Brien and Keith Wilson. We are very happy to have you with us again. You gave us some very good advice at our previous meeting and we are very happy to have you with us. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. RITTENHOUSE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ADMINISTRATORS, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK'S DIVISION OF MOTOR BOATS; AND KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN'S STATE WATERWAYS COMMISSION Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Robert F. Rittenhouse. I am director of the Oregon State Marine Board and the president of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. With me, today, are two fellow State boating administrators, Mr. James O'Brien of New York and Mr. Keith Wilson of Michigan. We hope that our representation-the East, the central States and the West, will be accepted as an indication of the States' interest in this legislation. Our association membership includes 48 of our 50 States. At this committee's first hearing on H.R. 15041, Congressman John Dellenback of Oregon, a member of your full committee, introduced in behalf of our association, some proposed amendments. You may recall that Congressman Dellenback stated that "The State Boating Law Administrators have a great deal of interest in, and at stake in this legislation." As the Congressman so aptly stated at that time, the State boating law administrator—will actually be the grassroots of any national boating safety program which Congress might conceive. Congressman Dellenback further pointed out that for enforcement of the boating laws the States share concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government and sole jurisdiction on strictly State waters. Consequently, the heavier load of enforcement is with the States. I am sure you gentlemen will concur that the States' interest in this will be justified. Our sole purpose in submitting these reasonable amendments is so that we may administer the new laws with clarity and efficiency. I will not dwell on the amendments which Congresman Dellenback proposed in our behalf; these amendments and the reasons they were proposed are already in your committee records. I would like to point out and emphasize that the Secretary of Transportation submitted this bill to several of the States Governors, including Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, and solicited the Governors' comments. Governor McCall recommended the same amendments introduced by Congressman Dellenback. The Secretary, in answering Governor McCall, concurred with all but two of the proposals. I feel that this is most important, and I have with me several copies of the Secretary's letter, which I ask be made a part of the record. (The letter follows:) Hon. Toм MCCALL, Governor of Oregon, Salem, Oreg. THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, DEAR TOM: Thank you for your letter. I have reviewed your suggested amendments and would like to review each in turn. Section 4. The Department of Transportation has no objection to adopting your language: "A vessel whose owner is a state or a subdivision thereof, is used exclusively in the public service, and which is clearly identifiable as such; or". Section 6. We do not feel that your suggested 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," is necessary. The Department of Transportation believes that the safeguards listed in the previous subsections are sufficient to provide information for public use. Section 10. The Department of Transportation believes that your proposed addition: ", except for such detached equipment a state may require to meet unusual conditions," would destroy a fundamental principle enunciated by Congress, uniformity. Furthermore, there is sufficient authority in section 9 and in the opening clause of section 10 to provide a basis for the State to require additional equipment to meet unusual conditions upon application to the Secretary of Transportation. We do not wish to see any amendment which would give States the authority to write performance standards which could apply to the manufacturer of said associated equipment. Section 18. We have no objections to your suggested changes: (b) Change "two years" to "three years". (c) Change to read: "When a vessel is numbered validly in the State of principal use, it shall be considered as being in compliance with the numbering system requirements of any State in which it is temporarily used”. (d) Change "boat" to "vessel". Delete "or an exemption granted". Change "ninety days" to "thirty days". (f) In line 7, at the end of the sentence, add the following: "and the State has not corrected such failures within a reasonable time after being notified by the Secretary". Section 21. The Department is willing to have "forward half" inserted in lieu of "bow". Section 26. We are willing to add a sixth subsection which reads: "(6) provides for boating safety education programs". Section 27. The allocation of Federal funds described in section 27 is open to negotiation. The Department of Transportation is not married to the formula contained in our bill. However, certain difficulties exist with the proposed language in the context of the remaining sections of the legislation. For this reason, the principle of the recommended amendment is acceptable. Section 33. While the Department of Transportation believes that the language of the bill is optimum, the Department recognizes that there are arguments in favor of more clearly delineating the specific membership. While we may not agree entirely with the language recommended, we will not oppose the principle of this amendment. I hope that these answers satisfy your questions. Thank you again for support on this legislation. Sincerely, JOHN A. VOLPE. If the fine is imposed by the administrative agency and the fine is based upon the language of the statute, if the person fined appeals that fine, he has the burden of proving that is an unreasonable fine. Mr. LENNON. In other words, it is not de novo? Mr. BOGGS. That is right. If the administrator has to comply with this kind of language in the statute, if he does not comply, we would have to assert in the court proceeding why he did not comply. That is what we are driving at. Mr. LENNON. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Our next witness is Robert E. Rittenhouse, and he seems to be accompanied by James O'Brien and Keith Wilson. We are very happy to have you with us again. You gave us some very good advice at our previous meeting and we are very happy to have you with us. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. RITTENHOUSE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ADMINISTRATORS, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK'S DIVISION OF MOTOR BOATS; AND KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN'S STATE WATERWAYS COMMISSION Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Robert F. Rittenhouse. I am director of the Oregon State Marine Board and the president of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. With me, today, are two fellow State boating administrators, Mr. James O'Brien of New York and Mr. Keith Wilson of Michigan. We hope that our representation-the East, the central States and the West, will be accepted as an indication of the States' interest in this legislation. Our association membership includes 48 of our 50 States. At this committee's first hearing on H.R. 15041, Congressman John Dellenback of Oregon, a member of your full committee, introduced in behalf of our association, some proposed amendments. You may recall that Congressman Dellenback stated that "The State Boating Law Administrators have a great deal of interest in, and at stake in this legislation." As the Congressman so aptly stated at that time, the State boating law administrator-will actually be the grassroots of any national boating safety program which Congress might conceive. Congressman Dellenback further pointed out that for enforcement of the boating laws the States share concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government and sole jurisdiction on strictly State waters. Consequently, the heavier load of enforcement is with the States. I am sure you gentlemen will concur that the States' interest in this will be justified. Our sole purpose in submitting these reasonable amendments is so that we may administer the new laws with clarity and efficiency. I will not dwell on the amendments which Congresman Dellenback proposed in our behalf; these amendments and the reasons they were proposed are already in your committee records. I would like to point out and emphasize that the Secretary of Transportation submitted this bill to several of the States Governors, including Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, and solicited the Governors' comments. Governor McCall recommended the same amendments introduced by Congressman Dellenback. The Secretary, in answering Governor McCall, concurred with all but two of the proposals. I feel that this is most important, and I have with me several copies of the Secretary's letter, which I ask be made a part of the record. (The letter follows:) Hon. Toм MCCALL, Governor of Oregon, Salem, Oreg. THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, DEAR TOM: Thank you for your letter. I have reviewed your suggested amendments and would like to review each in turn. Section 4. The Department of Transportation has no objection to adopting your language: "A vessel whose owner is a state or a subdivision thereof, is used exclusively in the public service, and which is clearly identifiable as such; or". Section 6. We do not feel that your suggested 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," is necessary. The Department of Transportation believes that the safeguards listed in the previous subsections are sufficient to provide information for public use. Section 10. The Department of Transportation believes that your proposed addition: “, except for such detached equipment a state may require to meet unusual conditions," would destroy a fundamental principle enunciated by Congress, uniformity. Furthermore, there is sufficient authority in section 9 and in the opening clause of section 10 to provide a basis for the State to require additional equipment to meet unusual conditions upon application to the Secretary of Transportation. We do not wish to see any amendment which would give States the authority to write performance standards which could apply to the manufacturer of said associated equipment. Section 18. We have no objections to your suggested changes : (b) Change "two years" to "three years". (c) Change to read: "When a vessel is numbered validly in the State of principal use, it shall be considered as being in compliance with the numbering system requirements of any State in which it is temporarily used". (d) Change "boat" to "vessel". Delete "or an exemption granted". Change "ninety days" to "thirty days". (f) In line 7, at the end of the sentence, add the following: "and the State has not corrected such failures within a reasonable time after being notified by the Secretary". Section 21. The Department is willing to have "forward half” inserted in lieu of "bow". Section 26. We are willing to add a sixth subsection which reads: "(6) provides for boating safety education programs”. Section 27. The allocation of Federal funds described in section 27 is open to negotiation. The Department of Transportation is not married to the formula contained in our bill. However, certain difficulties exist with the proposed language in the context of the remaining sections of the legislation. For this reason, the principle of the recommended amendment is acceptable. Section 33. While the Department of Transportation believes that the language of the bill is optimum, the Department recognizes that there are arguments in favor of more clearly delineating the specific membership. While we may not agree entirely with the language recommended, we will not oppose the principle of this amendment. I hope that these answers satisfy your questions. Thank you again for support on this legislation. Sincerely, JOHN A. VOLPE. Mr. RITTENHOUSE. One of the proposed amendments which the Secretary did not concur with was in regard to section 6-Prescribing Regulations and Standards. On Page 7, after subparagraph (4), it is recommended that a new subsection be added. (5) Provide a statement indicating the reasons and considerations in formulating and prescribing regulations and standards pursuant to Section 5 of this Act. All we ask for is a simple statement indicating the reasons and considerations in formulating and prescribing regulations and standards. This certainly does not seem unreasonable-a simple statement. A simple statement so that the State Administrator, the boat builder, and the consumer know the reasons why. I elaborated further on this particular subject at your recent hearing in Seattle, Wash. My statement given in Seattle is the official position of our national association, of my own Governor and, I am quite sure, the position of several other Governors. Another section that the Secretary did not concur with the proposed amendments was section 10. Our association has modified its language on this particular section from that previously submitted. I have asked Mr. Wilson to include that in his presentation. The amendments which our association is submitting today are supplemental to those submitted on our behalf on March 24 by Congressman Dellenback. We believe these are good amendments which are complementary to this bill. In closing I would like to emphasize that this act is needed-needed to further enhance the safety of the millions of American citizens who each year are going boating on the waterways throughout the country. We urge that every possible effort be made to bring about the enactment of this bill during the present session of Congress. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Wilson and Mr. O'Brien to speak on the supplemental amendments the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators are proposing today. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Gentlemen, you may continue. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I am director of the Michigan State Waterways Commission and the parliamentarian of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. My function here is to explain and outline certain amendments that the national association is proposing to some sections that I will specify. itions The first amendment is in section 3 under "Definitions." (11) "SAFETY CERTIFICATE" means a certificate evidencing that the holder thereof has successfully completed a state approved course of instruction in boating safety. COMMENTS This defines these words which are used in section 22 and which appear in like fashion in the current provisions of the Bonner Act. Most State boating officials have interpreted this language to permit and perhaps even to encourage the requirement on the State level that any operator of a numbered vessel must have a boat operator's license. In |