[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Skip,
Are you saying that when provisions are struck through, as in your link, that means they are proposing to leave those in? I thought that meant they were proposing to eliminate them. Please go through the bill and explain one by one what each addition and deletion is intended to do to make boats quieter...
Anyway, these questions have to be researched and resolved conclusively. Don't you (of all people) agree?...

These are the text explanations as found at the beginning of the bill I referenced:

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

If you now re-read the bill, you will find that nearly all of the existing RSA 270:25 & 270:37 remain intact. This is ascertained by the fact that all portions of the RSA(s) that will be "reenacted" appear in regular type. The key note to the legislation referencing that the 50 foot test is still in play is found under 270:37 (II) with the phrase "...any testing procedure established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39, this is the the "rulemaking" caveat that allows the Director, under the administrative rules section (RSA 541), to implement any type of testing he deems necessary, including the so-called stationary (new) rules and the previous course driven noise measurement requirement and anything new that might come down the road.

The unammended RSA only allowed for the single test, the proposed RSA allows for multiple tests under different scenarios.

The additional penalties and authorities I mentioned all appear in bold italics. Conflicting language that inhibited the stationary testing is struck.

Perhaps the language and intent are much more clear to me, given my background. However, I am sure that Representative Whalley can fully articulate the great improvements his bill will make in enforcing reasonable noise legislation.

On a sidenote, no noise regulation is 100% foolproof. However, this issue has been studied extensively by the SAE (Society of American Enginneers). The NMMA adopted these regulations to supply framework for model ordinances to be written nationwide, so boat manufacturers can build boats to a single standard accepted across the Country. And it is catching on, as more & more States accept and adopt these recommendations. One of the most strictest States in the Country (California) when it comes to environmental regulation has adopted these same standards.

Actually the concept is quite unique & quite simple. The assumption during the stationary test given at a very close range is that if a boat exceeeds the 88/90 decibel limit at idle, it will presumably exceed the 50 foot test. It allows officers in the field to perform the test instantaneously, with a minimal amount of time, equipment and training involved.

And remember, enabling legislation embedded in this ammendment still allows the director the discretion of ordering the 50 test under Administrative Rules.

Simply stated, Rep. Whalley's legislation allows the MPs to easily enforce what to now was complicated, greatly enhances the penalty for violations (both monetarily and by making the offense a misdemeanor if committed by a person, or a FELONY if committed by a corporation) while impacting the enforcing agency minimally.

In closing, I have resisted (at great temptation) to enter into this fray since I stated my opinions on the matter of some aspects of the speed limit bill several months ago. No one wins here in the battle of opinions, virtually everyone has settled in to their respective camps a long time ago. I have gritted my teeth as I have read, from both sides of the battle, what can only be described as gross intentional distortions of the nature and scope of the proposed legislation, the general laws of the State of New Hampshire, demeaning and totally unsubstantiated remarks attributed to Members of the Marine Patrol, the State Legislature, Senate and general members of the public along with well intentioned members of this website accidentally drawn into the fray.

Don has been a saint to allow this to go on as long as he has. But some people need to go back and reread their posts, accusations, counteraccusations and plain ayttempts at trolling. It is really quite embarassing to see what are actually concerned, educated and motivated citizens to act this way under the guise of anonymity!

Maybe its time that unless something new develops, everyone move on to the more positive aspects of Winni that originally brought most of us here in the first place....we could all use the break!

ENOUGH...I apologize for getting on my soapbox. Thanks for asking for the clarification. As always, I am available off-line to help explain some of the intricacies of the particular laws, regulations and legislation pertaining to these legal issues in New Hampshire.

And Don, thanks for your wisdom, patince and dedication to moderating this sometimes wayward ship! As Pepper rightfully claims, you are the greatest.....

Skip