would be some opposition to it because of the cost factor that it would bring in.

One thing I am very much delighted to report to you about the proposals in this measure is the establishment of a Federal aid type of program to the State boating administrators to help bolster our enforcement and safety educational programs.

We have in our State a relatively small boating program and we register boats on a 3-year basis. So far, we have been able to quite fairly meet the bill. However, I would say that we look for ways and means to bolster this important area of safety training. At the present time, we lean very heavily on the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the power squadrons in our States who are lending both a lot of time and effort in promoting boating safety, and I think it has had a measurable effect on our activities.

In the last several years in our State we have been averaging out between a dozen to 15 or 20 fatalities except 1 year when we jumped to 30. As of last night when I left Maine, we had a total of seven fatalities in our State. The last one was four drownings in one sloop off Monhegan Island. We have had a good season thus far with only three fatalities from the general run of the mill boating public in our State. With the provisions of this proposal to offer Federal aid assistance to the States, we in the State of Maine would be very much helped and assisted by added funds to help develop additional safety programs in consort with the power and auxiliary squadrons and through our school programs in passing on some of the better messages on safer boating in our State.

To this extent, the present measure proposes a decreasing scale of Federal aid allotments in here. I forget the percentage but they decrease each successive year. This gives us some concern. As an administrator, I would like to be able to establish a program and know I could continue it out of X number of years without knowing I would be faced with decreasing amounts of money to finance this program. I would rather have a lesser total amount of money be granted in the Federal aid program with the surety that I had an equal amount each year so I could continue the staff in the safety and enforcement areas and also the various expenses that would go with that type of a pro

gram.

At the present time, we are one of the States that utilizes our fish and game wardens and our coastal wardens to implement the enforcement of boating laws. We have to do this for financial reasons as well; this as a supplement to their already existing activities as conservation enforcement officers in the State.

We have some 130 game wardens in the State and about 35 coastal wardens and, supplemented by the Coast Guard, these are our activities. Should we be granted additional funds in this year, I would like to be able to bolster up their programs so that perhaps we could set up some kind of boating safety enforcement teams that would be on a free-roving basis to hit the high spots and get to our heavier-use boating areas.

With those points, Mr. Chairman, those are the points I had to comment on other than to say we endorse the amendments presented by our national committee, and I thank you for the opportunity to

comment on this measure and urge its early hopeful passage by the Congress.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you for your statement. We will have a few questions.

Could you tell me how much State licensing of operators there is here in the New England area?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not too well acquainted with the other States. I doubt if it is a very generally exercised option in our boat laws. In Maine, we have a boat operator's license, but it is similar to carrying six or less passengers which the Coast Guard issues on Federal waters. We have such a license for boatowners carrying passengers for hire, but I do not look with favor upon general licensing of boat operators. I would rather devote more effort to our safety and enforcement, which is a stricter form of education. I think we could bolster that up before we got into that problem of operator licensing.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Keith.

Mr. KEITH. What was the cause of the foundering of the sloop and why were so many lives lost?

Mr. JOHNSON. There were four lives lost on the 40-odd-foot sloop. I think it was the 22nd of May about 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning in a heavy fog. We do not know. It is all conjecture but the sloop grounded on a very rocky, high cliff-like shore, grounded there and was found in the morning about daybreak.

Mr. KEITH. Had they left the boat?

Mr. JOHNSON. I presume they did because they were within 20 or 30 feet of the rocky ledge and it drops off rather quickly there, so it is clear conjecture as to what happened because there were no survivors. Apparently it was poor navigation, fog conditions, and so on. It is just one of those things that happens in the boating world, as it also happens in the automobile world. You don't know why these things happen.

Mr. KEITH. Are you familiar with the Moosehead Lake tragedy of years ago when 13 lives were lost?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don't ever recall anything of that nature sir.

Mr. KEITH. A launch was put into the lake early in the season before it had swelled up. It went a couple of hundred yards offshore very early in April just after the ice had gone out and all but one life was lost.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not recall any numbers like 13 but I do recall back in about 1964 or 1965 we had an accident where there were four out-of-State people who purchased a new boat and came up on the Moosehead early in the season. A strong wind condition came up. We can get very sizable wave conditions here. This boat swamped and overturned at the time. The lifesaving devices were in horrible condition. They were very poor to begin with. They were bought with the boat and used at that time. I fail to recollect anything of the nature of 13 lives lost.

to.

Mr. KEITH. It was some time ago.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know just which incident you are referring

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. Counsel has a question or two to ask you.

Mr. CORRADO. I would like to talk a moment about the percentages in section 28 which you raised in your testimony. All of your amendments will, of course, be presented to the committee in executive session for the Congressmen to make the determination, but I would like to make the point to you now, sir, that in this particular section of the bill the percentage is set out and the amount of funding, and the $5 million funding and the percentages are something that are established by the administration, and it is an administration bill, and these features have been passed on by the Bureau of the Budget. It makes it extremely difficult under these circumstances to change those particular items. I am not saying it cannot be done or will or will not be done, but I just wanted you to understand this is an administration bill and these are the features that have been set by the administration; and it does make it a little more difficult to effect a change in these particular areas.

Mr. JOHNSON. I only wanted to draw a comment on that point simply to show you that it would put us in an awkward position of maintaining a good safety program that it is supposed to finance.

Mr. CORRADO. Your point of amending the bill to give 3 years instead of 2 years for the States to enact supporting legislation seems to be a reasonable point and that will be presented to the Congressmen in executive session.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think there are probably several other States that are subjected to any legislation, and we might run into this projected problem and I would hate to have the string cut on me that quickly if I could not make the grade the first time.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Mr. CLARK. Our next witness is Mr. James Hunt, vice president, O-Day Boat Corp., Fall River, Mass. Is Mr. Hunt here? [No response.]

Next is Mr. William F. King, president, Harrington King & Co., 280 Pond Street, Randolph, Mass.

For the record, as you give your statement, give your name and address, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. KING, PRESIDENT, HARRINGTON, KING & CO., RANDOLPH, MASS., ON BEHALF OF NEW ENGLAND MARINE TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. KING. My name is William Fuller King and my home is Norwell, Mass., in the 12th District.

Mr. KEITH. Nice to have you aboard.

Mr. KING. I would like to read a brief statement which identifies my connection with the industry and covers, I think, most of the points that the groups I represent would be interested in.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure for me to appear before this committee on behalf of the New England Marine Trade Association, Inc. I am William F. King, Jr., president of Harrington, King & Co., Inc., Randolph, Mass. and Camden, Maine-a distributor of pleasure boat equipment. I am also president of Chiott's Inc., in Burlington, Vt., also a distributor of marine hardware.

In the New England Marine Trade Association, I serve in the capacity of director of the Massachusetts Marine Trade Association, Inc., and also the chairman of the board of the New England Marine Trade Association, Inc. I am also presently president of the National Marine Distributors Association who represent marine equipment distributors from a great many of the State marine trade associations; namely, the Massachusetts Marine Trades Association, Connecticut Marine Trades Association, New Hampshire Marine Dealers Association, Maine Marine Trades Association, and the Rhode Island Marine Trades Association. Vermont no longer has a formal organization; however, we have a number of members from that State in our New England group.

At present, our New England group represents over 400 different companies all of them, in some way, financially interested in the pleasure boat business. This group would include dealers, distributors, manufacturers, marine insurance people, newspaper people, yards, repair shops, propeller shops, and many others.

New England Marine Trade Association, Inc., has now been in business for 15 years. The groups which I represent are most grateful for this opportunity, and are very much desirous of cooperating with this committee to improve, in the best way possible, boating safety, in order to make recreational boating a more attractive pastime for the general public, while attempting to improve our own livelihood.

In general, we support House Bill 15041. We are particularly pleased with the funding portion of the bill. Although we feel that the sum of $5 million is not enough to do the job which must be done, we do feel that is is an excellent start.

We have long felt that a great many of the problems in boating safety which appear to be without regulation are, in fact, without enforcement mainly due to lack of funds. Initial regulations are basically adequate this, coupled with the voluntary enforcement of local organizations such as yacht clubs, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Power Squadron, et cetera, have served to maintain a relatively low accident rate. But the proper dollars for enforcement could generally improve State participation.

The 1969 boating bill is flexible and, yet, broad in coverage. The Secretary's powers are great and justifiably so as long as the Advisory Council is an active group to be used in a truly advisory capacity and not as a mere figurehead or a puppet between the public, industry, and the Secretary. We feel that this bill, as it now reads, will give a framework for the future in terms of coping with problems which no doubt will arise if we accomplish the growth which is now projected in the boating industry for the next decade. The regulations, which are now in the books on a Federal, State, and local level, are capable of handling the problems that we presently have. As I said previously, the problem is today most localities are short of funds to enforce existing rules. This law will initially provide the necessary improvement in this area, in our opinion.

For this committee, in 1968, I made the statement that:

The fraternity of yachtsmen and commercial sailors have for generations maintained through the written and unwritten rules of the road; a basically safe approach to the problem of boating. This traditional self-regulation must be maintained. Any other way will be unbelievably expensive. We must be careful not to overregulate and destroy this. Before further regulations are made

under the new bill, it would be our feeling that a need, a definite need, should be proven before extra regulation is sought. However, learning to navigate, to use charts, and to face the problems of tide, water depth, winds, and general weather complications is something that can only be learned through a vast amount of experience. The New England Marine Trade Association has always been unalterably opposed to licensing a boat for we feel that this would be an extremely cumbersome and expensive project to accomplish and really would not improve safety upon the high seas. Such a plan would also undermine the excellent self-education programs which are now undertaken on contributory or pay-as-you-go basis by so many different yacht clubs, power squadrons, and other organizations.

In the area of standards, which the new law will cover, we feel that the industry has done a tremendous job in setting up construction rules and standards by which manufacturers must abide on a voluntary basis. However, there are always those who will not agree to the methods of the majority, and this is where the Federal rulings can be of great help. We will agree with our affiliate associations, NAEBM and BĨA that we must be careful how offenders are notified and in what way such offenses are to be made public.

I recently ran across an instance where a boat, made under industry standard developed cracks in the structural aluminum transom. Investigation of the problem produced an answer which we did not expect. It turned out that the boat and motor had been placed on a trailer that could not properly carry the load without seriously damaging the boat after a reasonable length of time. Further investigation found one more boat which had a similar problem. These boats had passed all water tests. I would not think that the manufacturer of this product should face the indignities that bad publicity could produce in a case like this where the boat was found to be completely safe while in the water. Hundreds of other boats of this type properly trailed have never produced this problem.

We further feel the criminal penalties outlined under the new bill are to some extent excessive and superfluous. There are plenty of effective methods under existing rules for penalizing under civil law offenders of this bill. In Massachusetts, and in other sections of this bill, the simple removal of an individual's boat registration has proved to be more than effective in maintaining compliance with the law. A simple program such as this does, however, require adequate enforcement in terms of equipment and manpower. Penalties maintained on this level are more respected by the average boatowner, as are a lot of the authorities who must enforce them.

The most disturbing item in House bill 15041 is the phraseology in section 12, which reads: "If engaged in the business of selling or distributing boats or associate equipment." We do not believe that a distributor or dealer, unless he willfully sold such products, knowing they were not in compliance, should be subject to the penalties described in this bill. We agree with our sister organizations that this portion of the act should be amended.

We further agree that the leadtime, as presently described for redesigning or retooling, is not adequate to cover the majority of cases. In extremely hazardous situations, 180 days may be realistic and even too long, but normally we cannot foresee situations where 180 days can be efficient time for the proper change.

In the area of registration, we are extremely pleased to see the attempt at improving reciprocity and standardization of the systems

49-610-70-12