« AnteriorContinuar »
only motorboats as defined in the act may be proceeded against by way of libel and makes no provision for proceeding against the other vessels covered by the act. The present bill attempts to correct these inequalities. It provides in section 16 that the owner or operator, either one or both of them, of a motorboat or other vessel subject to any of the provisions of the act shall be liable to a penalty of $100, except that in the case of motorboats or other vessels subject to the provisions of the act which are engaged in carrying passengers for hire, there shall be a maximum penalty of $200 for violation of sections 6, 7, or s of the draft bill (which sections require lifesaving equipment, licensed operators, and fire-extinguishing equipment): The bill further provides in section 16 that the motorboat or vessel shall be liable for any penalty incurred thereunder and may be proceeded against by way of libel in the district court. In the case of motorboats or other vessels carrying passengers for hire, it would appear that a substantial penalty should be imposed on the owner or operator, either one or both of them, if the vessels are not properly equipped with lifesaving appliances and fire-extinguishing equipment and manned by licensed operators. The danger to life on such vessels through lack or failure to comply with the provisions of the bill in these respects should be more severely penalized than other violations of the terms of the bill. It is to be moted also that provision has been made for the imposition of a penalty against both owner and operator. There have been many instances where the owner of a motorboat has provided proper equipment, the operator thereafter destroying, losing, and misplacing the equipment, thereby causing the owner to be penalized while the operator had no responsibility. The draft bill proposes to correct this condition to permit the penalty to be imposed upon the person who is actually guilty of the violation of law. Section 8 of the present law provides that the Secretary of Commerce may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate any fine, penalty, or forfeiture relating to motorboats except for failure to observe the provisions of section 6 of the act, which section requires such motorboats and other vessels to have on board the means of extinguishing burning gasoline. It also provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall make such regulations as may be necessary to secure the proper execution of the act by collectors of customs and other officers of the Government. Considerable difficulty has been experienced in the admini iration of that section. In the first place as no authority to mitigate or remit penalties incurred for violation of section 6 has been received, necessarily such cases have been referred to representatives of the Department of Justice for action. This procedure has apparently resulted in turning over to the various United States attorneys a great number of cases in which no action was desirable or in which only a small penalty was warranted. This procedure has in some instances caused a congestion in the office of the United States attorneys and probably resulted in some inequalities which have been the occasion of many complaints on the part of motorboat owners. There seem to be no good reasons for its continuation, and accordingly section 17 of the draft bill provides that the Secretary of Commerce may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate any fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred under the act or any regulation thereunder relating to motorboats or vessels, except the penalties provided for in section 14 of the bill. Section 14 provides that any person who shall operate any motorboat or any vessel in such a manner as to endanger the safety of any person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. The Secretary of Commerce heretofore has not been granted authority to mitigate or remit penalties in connection with misdemeanors, and it does not appear advisable to now grant such authority. The section also provides that any officer of the Department of Commerce authorized by the Secretary for the purpose, may upon application therefor, remit or mitigate any fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred under the act or any regulation thereunder. Generally speaking, the navigation laws grant to the Secretary of Commerce authority to remit or mitigate penalties incurred thereunder. A great number of these cases are handled in this Department and it is felt desirable to relieve the Secretary of the burden of personally passing on each of these cases, many of which are very minor in their nature. The same section of the bill provides that the Board of Supervising Inspectors, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, shall establish all necessary regulations required to carry out in the most effective manner all of the provisions of the bill, and that such regulations, when approved by the Secretary of Commerce, shall have the force of law. It further provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall establish such regulations as may be necessary to secure the enforcement of the provisions of the bill. A distinction is made between the two classes of regulations as those necessary to carry out in the most effective manner the provisions of the bill are strictly regulatory and affect the public at large in considerable measure. If is deemed desirable that such regulations should receive careful consideration by a board of persons experienced in such matters. The regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of the act are purely administrative and will not, generally speaking, affect the public at large, and may require amendment or change at intervals. The Bureau is of the opinion that the delegation of authority to make such regulations to the Board of Supervising Inspectors would result in cumbersome procedure and unnecessary delay. Section 2 of the act of May 11, 1918 (40 Stat. 549), provides for the minimum number of licensed deck officers to be required by the certificate of inspection of each ocean and coastwise seagoing merchant vessel of the United States propelled by machinery and each oceangoing vessel carrying passengers. A proviso of that section provides: “That this section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels, yachts, or motorboats as defined in the act of June 9, 1910, or to wrecking vessels.” The draft bill proposes to repeal the act of June 9, 1910, and to substitute its provisions for those of that act. It is not the intention of this bill to require licensed officers on motorboats or vessels to which it applies. In order to avoid conflict between section 2 of the act of May 11, 1918, and the draft bill, section 18 proposes to strike out from the proviso in the former the words “June 9, 1910," and to insert in lieu thereof the date of enactment of the draft bill if enacted. Section 4399 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, contains the following proviso: “That motorboats as defined in the act of June 9, 1910, are exempted from the provisions of this act.” The draft bill proposed to repeal the act of June 9, 1910, and substitute the provisions of that act. It was not the intention of this bill to subject motorboats to all of the provisions of title 52 of the Revised Statutes, requiring inspection, manning by licensed officers, etc., and in order to avoid this possibility section 18 proposes to strike out from the proviso above the words “June 9, 1910," and insert in lieu thereof the date of enactment of the draft bill if enacted. Section 19 provides that the bill, if enacted, shall become effective 1 year from the date of its approval and at that time will repeal the Motorboat Act of June 9, 1910. The draft bill has many new provisions, as shown in the foregoing, which would become applicable to the vessels to which it applies. It would appear that some period of time should be allowed for the necessary adjustments in order that vessels may be brought into compliance with those requirements, and a period of not less than 1 year should be allowed for that purpose. In the meantime there seems to be no reason why the present motorboat law should not remain in force. If that law is repealed by the enactment of this bill and the provisions of this bill do not become effective for 1 year from that time, motorboats and certain other vessels would be permitted to operate for that period of time without any supervision and without being required to comply with any of the safety laws or regulations. The latter part of section 19 of the bill provides that nothing in the bill shall be deemed to alter or amend section 4417 (a) of the Revised Statutes (Tanker Act) or to alter, amend, or repeal acts of Congress or treaties embodying or revising international rules for preventing collisions at sea. Section 9 of the present law has a similar clause, saving the international rules for preventing collisions at sea. Since section 4417 (a) of the Revised Statutes was enacted subsequent to the passage of the present motorboat law, there was no reference to it in the original motorboat law. However, to avoid ambiguity it seems desirable that it should be clearly stated that nothing in the bill will affect the application of the Tanker Act in any respect. Section 20 of the bill is simply the customary authorization for the appropriation of sums necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill if enacted. It is estimated that the bill, if enacted, will result in a nonrecurring increased cost to the Government during the first year after its enactment of approximately $30,000 and a recurring cost in each year thereafter of approximately $5,000. These additional sums will be required for increases in clerical help, etc., in connection with the issuance of licenses to operators of motorboats carrying passengers for hire, as provided for in section 7 of the bill. The Bureau is convinced that the inclusion of that section in the bill is absolutely necessary in order to promote safety of passenger-carrying motorboats. R. S. FIELD, Director.
A BILL To amend certain sections of the Motor Boat Act of June 9, 1910, the Act of Congress approved June 7, 1897, the Act,9f Congress approved February 8, 1895, and §: o of the Revised Statutes, with respect to boats equipped with detachable motors and other motorboats
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sections 4 and 6 of the Act of June 9, 1910 (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 46, secs. 514 and 516), shall not apply to motorboats propelled by outboard motors while competing in any race previously arranged and announced, or if such boats be designed and intended solely for racing, while engaged in such navigation as is incidental to the tuning up of the boats and engines for the race.
Sec. 2. Motorboats as defined by section 1 of the Act of June 9, 1910 (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 46, sec. 511), the Act of June 7, 1897 (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 33, ch. 3, the Act of February 8, 1895 (U. S. C, 1934 edition, title 33, ch. 4), and by section 4412 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 33, ch. 5) shall not be required to carry on board copies of the pilot rules.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Is Mr. Remon here?
Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Mr. Remon will not be here, but I have a brief here for Mr. Remon.
(The paper above referred to is as follows:)
STATEMENT of John A. REMON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN Power BOAT ASSOCIATION
On behalf of the American Power Boat Association, a non-profit-making membership organization representing more than 200,000 yachtsmen throughout the country, and which is devoted to the advancement of recreational boating as well as to interests of the man of moderate means who owns a boat for pleasure or for sport, I respectfully submit our views concerning H. R. 6273, introduced by Congressman Boykin. This bill seeks to amend certain sections of the Motor Boat Act of June 9, 1910, and certain other laws with respect to boats equipped with detachable motors and other motorboats. If enacted, it would exempt boats equipped with outboard motors while competing in scheduled races, or if they are designed and intended solely for racing, while engaged in tuning-up runs, from carrying the equipment required by the Motor Boat Act of June 9, 1910, and from the necessity of carrying on board two copies of the pilot rules. At the outset, let me repeat that the American Power Boat Association is thoroughly in accord with all reasonable measures to safeguard life and property on the water. For instance, we require every driver competing in a regatta not only to carry but to wear a life jacket, and our rules provide an automatic and mandatory suspension of 6 months for any driver failing to comply with this rule. Naturally, however, we are opposed to regulations which from our experience are unnecessary or which in themselves constitute a hazard to life and property, or tend to make the sport of boating, which we foster, unduly burdensome. The Motor Boat Act of June 9, 1910, requires that all motorboats carry on board a whistle or sound-producing device and a means of extinguishing burning gasoline. The regulations of the Department of Commerce adopted in connection with this act require that they carry on board two copies of the pilot rules. The modern outboard racing boat is often referred to as a “flying shingle” because its maximum length rarely exceeds 10 feet and its weight 150 pounds. Although for lack of space in the cockpit the driver must crouch on his haunches to drive it, and with him in position there is little room for anything else, these boats have attained remarkable speeds. At Red Bank, N. J., last August, one of them was driven 61 miles per hour on a closed course, and on a straightaway course they have attained a maximum speed of 78 miles per hour. They are designed for use exclusively for racing and cannot be used for general recreation. They cannot be considered “pleasure boats” under the accepted meaning of the term, any more than a specially built and stripped down racing car could be considered a family automobile. In view of the foregoing it appears obvious that the idea of drivers of these boats consulting the pilot rules or using a whistle while traveling at such speeds during a race is out of the question. The regulations specifically state, however, that two copies of the pilot rules shall be on board at all times. May I submit for your consideration that there is little room on such boats for any such paraphernalia, that they frequently ship water in launching and during racing which keeps them wet both outside and inside, and that both boat and driver are as oily as might be expected when consideration is given to the mechanical repairs and adjustments that must be made in so limited a space. The supply of fresh copies of the pilot rules that would be required by some of these drivers for compliance with the letter and intent of this regulation would be very large, and we do not believe that the requirement serves any real purpose. Referring to “the means of promptly and effectually extinguishing burning gasoline,” a fire extinguisher to serve any purpose must be detachable for use. Assuming that a place could be found in such a boat to mount such an extinguisher, there is grave danger that it would come loose under the severe pounding that these boats take, and in this event could very easily break through the thin hull of the boat or seriously injure the driver should it chance to strike him. In the event of fire on one of these boats, it would be not only next to impossible but foolhardy for the driver to attempt to use an extinguisher due to the necessity of removing both hands from the controls to operate it. The simplest and most effective means of controlling the situation is for the driver to slip over the side intentionally capsizing his boat in so doing. His life jacket removes all danger from such a procedure, and all of these drivers are accustomed to this practice. *Because of the fact that practically all of the outboard racing boats use the several alcohol fuels now on the market commercially, water itself is a very effective extinguisher of any fire that might occur, due to the fact that alcohol is miscible with water and the extinction of the flame results from a combination of dilution, cooling, and smothering. In the case of benzol or gasoline, however, water does not dilute but simply floats and disburses the burning fluid. In view of these facts, we can see no need for carrying a chemical extinguisher when the medium in which the boat itself operates is an efficient and perhaps preferable extinguishing agent. I would like to ask your consideration also for the fact that the act regulating this equipment for motorboats was adopted in 1910, about the time that the first outboard motor appeared on the market. The outboard racing craft in its present form has been developed gradually in the last 12 or 15 years. It is highly improbable, therefore, that such a boat could have been considered by the Congress when the act became law, and in our opinion this act should be amended to care for conditions as they exist today. The provisions of H. R. 6273 are covered in H. R. 6039, which is designed to supplant and repeal the Motorboat Act of June 9, 1910, but would not become effective until 1 year after passage by the Congress. Passage of this latter bill, therefore, would not alleviate the conditions during the 1939 racing season. In view of the foregoing facts and because of the urgency of the situation in connection with the impending racing season, I respectfully request for H. R. 6273 every consideration by your committee, and earnestly hope that favorable action by the Congress will promptly result.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE RAPPLEYEA, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN POWER BOAT ASSOCIATION
The CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Rappleyea, in order to simplify things, let me ask you: On what bill are you appearing? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. On the motorboat bill, sir. "
The CHAIRMAN. Well they are both motorboat bills—H. R. 6089 and H. R. 6273. Mr. RAPPLEYEA. On both bills, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Have you any objections to them? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. No, sir; we are in favor of both of them. The CHAIRMAN. You are? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any amendments to suggest? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. Mr. Oliver. Who does Mr. Rappleyea represent? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Chairman of the legislative committee, American Power Boat Association, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statement to make? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do these bills impose any burdens or do they lighten and relieve burdens? r. RAPPLEYEA. They relieve burdens, sir; H. R. 6273 especially relieves— The CHAIRMAN. Everybody seems to be in favor of H. R. 6273 and it is a perfectly sensible sort of proposition. Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is, that racing boats shall not be required to carry all the equipment that everybody else has to carry. It is just the fool laws we have got that ever required any such thing. Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Mr. Chairman, the incident that prompted that was at Red Bank, N. J., last year, when something like 100,000 people were lined up on the banks and an inspector threatened to arrest the racers if they went on the courses, and held them up for an hour or so. The CHAIRMAN. All right; what was the trouble; what were they held up for? Mr. RAPPLEYEA. The inspector threatened to arrest them if they went out without numbers on the boats. They had large racing numbers, which are five feet high, about, but they did not have the small numbers on the boat, and they threatened, unless they obtained them, he would arrest them, and other things that are never considered in Racing boats like that. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, he was just going to arrest them unless they put a few numbers on the boats } Mr. RAPPLEYEA. Yes, sir, and disappointed 50,000 people there who came to Red Bank, N.J., who came from all over the country. Now I would like to save time The CHAIRMAN. I may say, in connection with that bill, I have had considerable correspondence and no protest against it. That is H. R. 6273. It is supported by the Detroit Yacht Club; Mississippi Valley Power Boat Association; Motor Boating, by C. F. Chapman; Miami Junior Chamber of Commerce; Andrew R. Hackett; Saranac Boat and Detroit Waterways Club, Inc., Saranac Lake; New Jersey Outboard Association, and Eldredge & McGuiness, Inc., of Boston. All the bill does is to provide that sections 4 and 6 of the act of June 9, 1910, “shall not apply to motorboats propelled by outboard