STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN ARTHUR J. KREMER, STATE OF NEW YORK As a representative of a Long Island district with a great deal of waterfront property and a large number of boat owners, I wish to offer some comments in connection with your hearing today which I hope will be helpful to the Committee. I should like to also point out that I have been the sponsor of a number of bills in Albany to correct some of the glaring deficiencies in our state Navigation Law. It is most imperative that the federal government take a direct interest in seeing that all of the states have a uniform boat safety act. Lack of any statute applicable to all states has caused only confusion and a continuation of lawless jurisdictions. Suffolk County is a good example. Even though Suffolk County has experienced the largest number of boating accidents statewide in 1968 and 1969, it still is not covered by any provisions of the state Navigation Law. Local "home rule" enthusiasts have blocked any change in the state law. Suffolk like all other counties should at the very least be covered by the equipment and reckless operation provisions of the state statutes and if not then federal law should supercede. Why shouldn't the young boatman's safety course be mandatory in Suffolk for all youngsters age 10 to 14? During the past two years, I have been urging adoption by this state of the Model Boat Safety Act, a uniform state proposal now in existence in at least 11 states. I believe your committee could be instrumental in pushing for adoption of such an Act on a national basis and could prod all of the states into action. Another unhappy facet of our boat safety picture in this state is inadequate funding. New York State gives a maximum of $50,000 per county to boating meccas like Nassau and Suffolk Counties, whose marine enforcement bureaus spend over $1,000,000 each year. The federal government should take a strong interest in providing additional funding for marine enforcement. As the author of a law to provide for capacity plates on all boats to prevent overloading, it should be noted that there are still many states that do not require that boats sold in their state contain a capacity plate. Here again is an area where the federal government is directly involved and could legislate nationally. Before concluding these remarks, I would be remiss in not mentioning the fact that the federal government has failed to avoid the conflict which has occurred over installation of holding tanks in pleasure craft. There is no uniformity between states in their requirements and boatmen with one type of equipment can now be in violation of other State laws. This is a glaring example of how the federal government could have avoided a major headache by preempting all states in selecting a uniform device. I appreciate the chance to express my views and commend the committee for its interest. Hon. JAMES R. GROVER, JR., 185 Woodsome Road, Babylon, Long Island, N.Y. MASSAPEQUA, N.Y., May 20, 1970. DEAR MR. GROVER: I understand that on May 22nd, you will be conducting a congressional hearing in Babylon on the subject of boating safety. Inasmuch as I will be unable to attend that meeting, I respectfully request that you consider the following items: 1. Licensing of all boat operators: As a requirement for securing such a license, the applicant should have to take some safe boating course, such as offered by the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the Power Squadrons. Although there is currently a requirement in N.Y. State that youngsters between the ages of 10-14 secure a safe boating certificate from the N.Y. State Dept. of Conservation, there is no such requirement for other ages. One only has to take a boat ride along the South shore of Long Island to see how necessary this licensing requirement is. You would see a complete disregard for Rules of the Road, signals, speed limits, etc. 2. Standardization of aids to navigation: Currently, on the south shore of Long Island, there is next to chaos when it comes to the erection and maintenance of aids to navigation (buoys, etc.). Some are put up by the Coast Guard, some by the state, some by the towns and others by private clubs and organizations. There is no standardization as to color, shape, size, etc. 3. Greater enforcement of boating laws: There should be an expansion of patrols by the local police and by the Coast Guard to enforce local state and federal boating laws. In many instances, the boats used by these agencies are too deep in draft to permit access to some waters and are too slow to enforce speed regulations. Perhaps greater utilization of shallow-draft, high speed outboards should be made. 4. Continued use of the Coast Guard Reserve: There is currently a move underfoot to eliminate the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. One point that many fail to realize however is that the Coast Guard Reserve supplements the regular Coast Guard during the busy summer months. Reservists are used to help man the Coast Guard boats and stations along the south and north shores of Long Island. Who will replace these men during the summer months if the Reserve program is eliminated? It would not be economically feasible to maintain a large regular Coast Guard all year round when most of their work is during the summer months. 5. Change in specifications for Coast Guard approved life jackets: Presently, the metal hardware (hooks, clasps, etc.) on Coast Guard approved life jackets and vests are extremely vulnerable to rust and corrosion, especially when used near salt water. Some manufacturers apparently use stainless steel hardware which stands up fairly well. Others, however, use hardware which rusts very easily if exposed to water. This results in the straps on the vest rotting and the life jacket or vest becoming unserviceable within a short period of time after purchase. Why can't the Coast Guard mandate use of stainless steel hardware? It might raise the initial cost of the life jacket, but in the long run it would be cheaper. Thank you for any consideration you might show these ideas. Sincerely, JOHN J. TARPEY, Jr. RUBATEX CORP., Bedford, Va., May 6, 1970. Hon. RICHARD H. POFF, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR DICK: It has come to our attention that there is a bill pending in Congress, HR 15041, to allow the U.S. Coast Guard to transfer its approval system for personal life saving devices to the Marine Division of Underwriter's Laboratories. We object to this transfer of the Coast Guard approval system because of the long time delay in obtaining approval from Underwriter's Laboratories, the probable higher expense of doing so, and because this system will allow approval of foreign materials and devices, which are not now approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. Specific details of this situation are as follows: The Coast Guard had already transferred responsibility for approval of special life saving devices to the Yacht Safety Bureau (now the Marine Division of Underwriter's Laboratories). Several months ago we received a notice from the Coast Guard, copy attached, that they plan to transfer approval of additional personal life saving devices to the Marine Division of the Underwriter's Laboratories. Complete information on this proposed change (and other changes in Coast Guard regulations) are reported in the Merchant Marine Council Public Hearing Agenda, CG-249, March 30, 1970. Please note that neither the Coast Guard letter of 2 March 1970, or the Merchant Marine Council Public Hearing Agenda, made any mention of the congressional bill to authorize the approval transfer, nor did it make any mention of the resulting possibility of approval of foreign materials and devices. After receiving the Coast Guard letter, we suggested a modification in the regulations to insure that the approvals by Underwriter's Laboratories would not take an unnecessarily long time. A copy of our recommendation on this point is attached. At the time we wrote this suggestion we were not aware that congressional authorization was required, and we were not aware that Underwriter's Laboratories has inspectors in foreign countries who could approve materials for import. We are already encountering some serious competition from the Japanese on flotation material of the type used for wet suits for skin diving. We cannot meet the Japanese low prices on this material. If the transfer of Coast Guard approval for general life saving devices and flotation material is allowed to take place, we feel quite sure that we would be faced with similar competition on these products. This would result in a loss of business to us and loss of employment to some of our workers. Therefore we are opposed to passage of HR 15041. For your information, Groendyk Manufacturing Company to whom the attached correspondence is addressed is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rubatex Corporation located in Bedford, Virginia. If you would like any additional information on this subject we shall be glad to try to provide it. Very truly yours, W. C. WALTERS, President. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing adjourned.) O MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS ON THE PLANNED DUMPING OF OBSOLETE POISONOUS SUB- |