Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skip
I would only ask that you stop making these bold, inaccurate and sweeping accusations that are easy to debunk. They only cheapen intelligent debate while unnecessarily damaging the credibility of the writer.
|
Skip,
I appreciate and respect your expertise on this subject, but insulting me and my credibility because I am asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate points and not just accepting on blind faith does not seem like something you would normally do. If you do not want to take part in this discussion, then I respect that, but please stop insulting my questions that are perfectly legitimate and insulting me for asking them. If this bill is truly all that you say it is, then you should have nothing to fear from some scrutiny, and you should welcome the opportunity to defend the bill and answer specific questions about it…like those I have been raising. If you do not wish to answer those, then perhaps someone else can, without degrading the debate into a personal attack.
I will list below the bill with my specific questions/comments/concerns interjected in
blue italics. If anyone has answers that do not include insults, please provide…I really want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of this bill
HB 1624-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2006 SESSION
06-2823
03/09
HOUSE BILL 1624-FN
AN ACT relative to boat noise.
SPONSORS: Rep. Whalley, Belk 5; Rep. Currier, Merr 5; Sen. Johnson, Dist 2; Sen. Gottesman, Dist 12; Sen. Boyce, Dist 4
COMMITTEE: Transportation
ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the boat noise limits and increases the penalties for certain boat noise violations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
(This makes it pretty clear to me that anything struck through in the bill is being proposed to be removed...not left in the existing law as an alternate or option.)
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
06-2823
03/09
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT relative to boat noise.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Paragraph; Muffling Devices. Amend RSA 270:25 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. No person shall own, operate, sell, or offer for sale any boat which is capable of discharging exhaust above the water unless the boat is equipped with muffling devices.
(This is clearly a narrowing of the muffling law and therefore a good thing…I have no questions about this)
2 Decibel Limits on Noise. Amend RSA 270:37 to read as follows:
270:37 Decibel Limits on Noise.
(Keep in mind that this statute is the whole of our current law on boating noise limits…so changes made to this law as proposed below would change the allowed limits…Period. No alternative dB limits are available for enforcement elsewhere)
I. No person may operate any boat powered by a marine engine manufactured before January 1, 1977, in or upon the waters of this state which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds a noise level of 86 decibels on the “A” scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the boat.
(Relates to 30 year old boats...who cares?)
II. No person may operate, sell, or offer for sale any marine engine [for use in or upon the waters of this state]
(This clearly seems to broaden the law in that it limits baots the same way if they are sold in the state for use in the state or for use elsewhere…so a marina cannot claim they did not know where a boat was goign to be used...I see this as a good thing and have no questions about it) which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the following noise levels measured [at a distance of 50 feet from the boat with which the engine is tested]
(Skip seems to be saying that this deletion is proposed becasue the MP can now use other measurement locations...I buy that until we get further down, then I start to have some doubts) under any testing procedure established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39:
(a) For a marine engine manufactured in or before [1977] 1990,
(Although this clearly narrows the law, I'm not so concerned about boats made between 1977 and 1990 anyway, so I'll skip this) a noise level of [86] 90
(Although again, this relates to older boats, it raises a key point. This increases the noise limit from 86 to 90 dB…That's a HUGE increase….2.5 Times as powerful and damaging to the human ear. Skip says that the MP could still measure from the old location or may now optionally choose to measure from the new location, but there is no provision here to leave the old dB limit in when they measure from 50 feet away and only use this new limit when they measure from the transom…The old lower limit is simply struck through, gone, kaput. I see no option here for the MP to still use it if they test from 50 feet away. I know skip does not want to answer this, but can someone explain how this is a tighter restriction on boat noise?) decibels [on the “A” scale]
(Legislators do not make meaningless cahnges to our laws. I do not understand their reasoning for this change and merely want to know why it is being changed…No accusations are being made. I’m not insulting the good men in Glendale or the good Rep Whalley…I just want to understand. Skip says that we are trying to conform to other states, yet www.corsaperf.com/mlaws.htm says that all other states measure on the “A” scale. Maybe that site is wrong. We always used the “A” scale. As I understand, the “A” scale is more in line with the frequencies that humans hear. Why this change?) when subjected to test SAE J2005.
(Seem to be restricting MP to using SAE-J2005, but again, I'm not concerned about the older boats)
(b) [For a marine engine manufactured between January 1, 1978, and December 31, 1981, a noise level of 84 decibels on the “A” scale.
(Again, I am not as concerned about older boats)
(c)] For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, [1981] 1990, a noise level of [82] 88
(Here's again the same key point, amd the most important point of the whole issue to me. This raises the limit from 82 to 88 dB for all new boats…That's a HUGE increase…4 times as powerful and damaging to the human ear. Again, Skip says that the MP could still measure from the old location or may choose to instead measure from the new location, but where does it say that? And even if they can, there is no provision here to leave the old lower dB limit in when they measure from 50 feet away and only use this new much louder limit only when they measure from the transom…the old limit is simply struck through, gone,kaput. There is apparently no “option” here for the MP to still use the old lower dB limit if they test from 50 feet away. I know Skip does not want to answer this, but can someone explain how this is a tighter restriction on boat noise? No insults please…just answer my legitimate question) decibels [on the “A” scale]
(Same question…Why this change?) when subjected to test SAE J2005.
III. [Noise levels in decibels shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
(This is a clear deletion of the statute that gave the director authority and discretion to establish testing methods. This seems to contradict Skip's statement that the old procedure is still optionally available to MP, except maybe for the old boats covered be paragraph II – But who cares about those? Can anyone tell me, without insulting me, how the MP is still going to be able to use otehr methods than those proposed by this bill if this statute is being struck from the law? Isn't this a legitimate question? Perhaps I am just reading all this wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to convert me that to insult me?)
IV.] The director or [his] the director’s agent may order the operator or owner of any boat which he [reasonably believes]
(No problem here, I don't feel that 'reasonable beliefs’ are things that can be enforced anyway) or she has articulable suspicion to believe is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the decibel limits contained in this section to subject [his] the boat to one or more noise level testing procedures as provided in this subdivision or to inspection of the engine and mechanical systems for violations of this section or RSA 270:25.
[V.] IV. A boat owner or operator shall submit a boat which is the subject of an order by the director or [his] the director’s agent pursuant to RSA 270:37, [IV] III to noise level testing by the director or [his] the director’s agent [within 7 days of such an order] immediately or at the time and location designated by the director or the director’s agent.
(Broadens the law…No question or problems for me) No person shall operate the boat after [this 7-day period has expired] the time designated until it is subjected to such noise level testing or engine and mechanical system inspection.
[VI.] V. The director or [his] the director’s agent may prohibit the operator or owner of any boat which fails a noise level testing procedure from operating the boat until the boat successfully passes the procedure. No person shall operate a boat contrary to such an order of the director.
[VII.] VI. Pursuant to the penalties imposed under RSA 270:41-a, any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than [$100] $250.
(Good, but is $250 enough? Many of these boats spend less than that on gas per day of operation. But at least it is an increase in teh fine and not a decrease) No portion of any fine imposed under this section shall be suspended or reduced by the court.
3 Stationary Sound Level Testing Authorized. Amend RSA 270:37-a, I to read as follows:
I. The director or [his] the director’s agent may use stationary sound level testing to determine marine engine noise levels for boats. Such testing shall be conducted while boats are stationary on the water according to test SAE J2005.
(This is clearly a broadening...No questions from me)
4 Motorboat Noise Levels; Penalty. Amend RSA 270:41-a to read as follows:
270:41-a Penalty.
I. Any person who violates the provisions of RSA 270:25[, 270:37, or 270:40], or any person who owns a boat which is operated with his or her permission or assent in violation of RSA 270:25, [270:37, or 270:40] shall be guilty of a violation for a first offense and guilty of a misdemeanor for a subsequent offense within a calendar year.
II. Any person who violates the provisions of RSA 270:37 or RSA 270:40, or any person who owns a boat which is operated with his or her permission or assent in violation of RSA 270:37 or RSA 270:40, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person.
(This part is clear and all sounds fine to me)
5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.
I hope that someone (other than Skip if he does not care to assist or only wants to insult) can please answer these legitimate questions for me and tell me where my concerns are mistaken,
FJ