exists and permits a multitude of standards not readily compatible to boating safety or standards.

It seems that, too often in our efforts to be helpful, we base our actions on what we think should be done to protect the public, when in reality we should be basing our actions on what should be done to protect the public against it.

For example, one section of H.R. 15041 would provide such protection by "authorizing a Coast Guard boarding officer-when discovering an especially hazardous condition upon the water, to terminate the use of the boat until the hazardous condition has been corrected."

Perhaps the most controversial portion of this act relates to the numbering requirements being extended to vessels with propulsion machinery of less than 10 horsepower and the language "equipped with propulsion machinery of any type."

Since every vessel in the same locale, uses a common environment (a body of water) it is subjected to common hazards (weather, structure equipment failure, etcetera) wants, and is entitled to, common services such as (assistance, aids to navigation, et cetera) should any class or type of vessel rightly anticipate the services of an act such as H.R. 15041 without contributing to the efficiency of the act?

There are those who want certain classes and types of boats exempted from uniform regulations and yet want and expect to receive the same uniform benefits and services.

Couldn't those who have been complying with the law feel discriminated against by those who now have, and who continue to want, their vessels exempted? A standard or uniform numbering system would appear to be essential to standard or uniform implementation of both the law and its service provisions.

This act even provides a time element, of up to 2 years from its effective date, for the States to make any necessary changes to achieve uniform implementation. State participation in the Federal program will permit Federal financial assistance through grants-in-aid.

Which State can say that they do not need or want more money for safety boating programs?

Five million dollars each year for grants-in-aid during the 5 fiscal years 1972 to 1976 can represent a substantial ancillary fund for those States complying with, and participating in, the requirements of this act.

In summary, millions of Americans have turned and are turning to boating for recreation. With an increase in their numbers by some 4,000 per week, standards for manufacturing boats and associated equipment and the promulgation of uniform regulations appears to be mandatory.

Concepts attuned to 1940 or to 1958 cannot be considered appropriate from 1970 or for the future.

I readily admit that safety per se cannot be legislated, but, uniform safety standards and regulations must first become law before they can be intelligently implemented by responsible personnel if we are to produce the desired safer boating results.

The right to dissent is an American tradition, but so is the right to assent.

Only through controversy have we ever arrived at a compromise compatible to the well-being of the majority. Both the assenter and

the dissenter must admit they base their assent or dissent on a common denominator; namely, a standard behavior pattern commensurate with their cause.

Safety regulations imposed by situations peculiar to a particular jurisdiction can, under this act, still be retained by local government but safety regulations found to be common to safe boating in general should be founded in an overall act such as H.R. 15041.

H.R. 15041 is, in my opinion, a compromise bill permitting law enforcement to be the concern and responsibility of State and local jurisdictions. Yet, through uniformity of standards it should provide maximum protection for the boating public with minimum Federal interference.

Mr. Chairman, I favor the passage of H.R. 15041, and I urge your favorable report.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Joe. Certainly you have added a lot to this hearing, and we do appreciate your coming. I was very happy that we were able to get you on today.

Mr. Keith?

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Do I understand that you are suggesting that all boats be numbered?

Mr. AVENI. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEITH. Regardless of horsepower or mode of propulsion? Mr. AVENI. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEITH. Not canoes propelled by paddles?

Mr. AVENI. No.

Mr. KEITH. Other than those that are propelled by hand, you would have every boat licensed? How about sails?

Mr. AVENI. Yes, sir; strange as it may seem, and I am speaking now basically of the bill as it pertains to safety and construction equipment. Therefore, why should that type of vesso perhaps be constructed on a nonconforming basis and still be subjected to the hazards of the environments, common environments, winds-they still prevail and have the same effect on a boat and loss of life.

Mr. KEITH. Then you would really want to have canoes have numbers because they are hazardous and subject to these elements and everything else.

Mr. AVENI. Frankly, I had not considered canoes in my thoughts. I had considered any vessel upon the water, considering a vessel to mean a boat powered/unpowered as the bill so states.

Mr. KEITH. The numbering process that you have in mind would. be done by the manufacturer at the time of certification?

Mr. AVENI. Right, not necessarily numbering by State but a conformity or uniformity of numbering system to at least show that this boat has conformed to the construction safety requirements. I am not speaking of numbering as we commonly term it for the purpose of registration. I am speaking of numbering in the process of conforming (to structural standards).

Mr. KEITH. That number would stay with the hull from that time on?

Mr. AVENI. That is correct.

Mr. KEITH. And registration would be something different again? Mr. AVENI. That is entirely different.

Mr. KEITH. Just make reference to the number?

Mr. AVENI. Right. My remarks are prefaced and stated on the basis of standard or uniform construction methods for that particular vessel and its ancillarly equipment. So, if these so-called boats or vessels do not meet the construction requirements, they would have a number which would indicate, in accordance with the Federal act, that they met these safety requirements so that when you and I go in to buy a boat we would have had a number issued to it so that we know it has met the Federal requirements.

Mr. KEITH. Is the bill before us broad enough to permit that if the advisory commission and the Coast Guard felt it was?

Mr. CORRADO. The numbering, as I view the bill, is only for vessels propelled by machinery. I would have to check the applicable provision.

Mr. KEITH. The bill says propulsion by machinery.

Mr. CORRADO. That would eliminate sailboats.

Mr. AVENI. I would hope they would include sailboats as far as construction and its equipment.

Mr. KEITH. In the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, we have passed legislation that would require tires to be numbered in such a way that they can be retrieved, and the manufacturers are cooperating in this effort. Would there be any comment appropriate at this time from Ralph on this development?

Mr. THACHER. We have always felt a standard identification of each manufactured boat is a perfectly appropriate thing to require in the form of a number or manufacturer's code plus a number permanently affixed to the boat. This is a difficult problem to find out. how to permanently affix. In the old days of documentation where the main beam had to have the number, tonnage, and so forth but we don't have main beams in dingies and canoes. We have to have some way of doing this, but the idea is sound and workable.

Mr. KEITH. It would be rather difficult, but I image it could be developed in the various small yards.

Mr. THACHER. It can be done in fiberglass and aluminum. To the best of by knowledge, it can be done simply in wood. Whether or not subsequent people can remove it, we don't know, but it can be accomplished. You can take a number off an engine. We can try it.

Could I ask a question of the speaker?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. THACHER. Would you tell me whom you represent.

Mr. AVENI. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1968 I was asked by the then Governor Volpe to head up an advisory group for the Commonwealth and at that time I chose through a method of elimination and application, et cetera, 44 men throughout the State who are extremely well versed in every phase of boating, whether it be banking and financing or construction, and so on, and geographically split the State into four parts calling them region 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are four executive officers and all four executive officers have all been commodores and belong to the Commodores Club of America Inc.

This is in addition to whatever other business they have. We have met each month in the last two and a quarter years and in regional and general sessions at an annual meeting. In fact, the last annual

meeting we had was in April at the Coast Guard Base here in Boston with Rear Admiral Ellis and his staff

This year there were 14 major problems that were brought out and submitted to the Governor and the Division of Motorboats in an advisory councelling capacity.

Mr. KEITH. Could we have a copy of the recommendations that you have submitted to the Government?

Mr. AVENI. Absolutely.

Mr. KEITH. Do these recommendations include suggested legislation for starting in Massachusetts what you propose nationally, namely, requiring the numbering of hulls?

Mr. AVENI. Yes, sir.1

Mr. KEITH. They do?

Mr. AVENI. No, sir, it does not include that because this is something that happened since then. For example, we did review completely the adequate use whether safety cushions were adequate and we recommend very strongly that they would not be considered to be adequate safety equipment on classes 1, 2, and so forth.

Mr. KEITH. I believe that is already within the sphere and jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, but this new suggestion you made here did not get incorporated into your recommendations to the Government. Mr. AVENI. No, sir, this has transpired since April 6th of this year. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Joe. We appreciate your remarks. Has Mr. James Hunt come into the hearing room yet? [No response.] Mr. CLARK. Our next witness is Hume G. MacDougall, president and general manager of Cape Cod Marine Service. I will allow Mr. Keith to introduce this gentleman.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDougall is the senior member of the firm of the Cape Cod Marine Service, Inc., known as MacDougall's down on Cape Cod, and a little advertising is in order since he is one of my constituents and he has come up all the way from Cape Cod this morning.

He is the vice president of the American Boat Builders and Repairers Association, Inc., and I am sure he will have a great deal of knowledge to contribute to this subject.

STATEMENT OF HUME G. MacDOUGALL, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, CAPE COD MARINE SERVICE, INC., AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BOAT BUILDERS & REPAIRERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. MACDOUGALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving me this opportunity to testify since it will save me about 6 hours of traveling

time tomorrow.

I am Hume G. MacDougall, president and general manager of Cape Cod Marine Service, Inc., of Falmouth, Mass.

We have been engaged in boat service for 32 years, 5 of these years I spent in the Army Engineers as an Operations Officer in charge of marine construction and repair.

1 Answer relates to legislation "That all boats, regardless of horsepower, be numbered (registered) in Massachusetts." 2 Answer relates to a hull number at time of manufacture.

I am a technical member of the American Boat and Yacht Council which needs no introduction to your committee.

I am also first vice president of the American Boat Builders & Repairers Association, Inc. I am here as chairman of their committee to study the Federal Boating Safety Act. Our committee consists of Mr. William Potter of Fairhaven Marine, Fairhaven, Mass. and Mr. George Davis, Plymouth Marine Railways, Plymouth, Mass. We were appointed at the annual meeting of the American Boat Builders & Repairers Association, Inc., after considerable discussion of the proposed Federal Boating Safety Act. We have conferred with officials of the boating industry by correspondence and with Mr. Ralph Thacher of the National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers, a previous speaker here and we are in general agreement with his testimony.

The American Boat Builders & Repairers Association for whom I speak is an organization of approximately 125 boatyards, custom boat builders, and sailmakers dedicated to boating safety and efficient management of boating services industries. We like to believe that our clientele are not in general those men who have contributed to the recent increase in boating accidents which has necessitated this legislation.

We can understand readily, however, how the expansion of recreational boating with more inexperienced participants and the larger number of builders and service facilities experienced and inexperienced are creating an unsafe situation that requires government regulation. We believe the regulation of pleasure boating safety should be under Federal control. Pleasure boating is an interstate activity both in the operation of yachts and in the manufacture and distribution for sale of boats and equipment.

We can see that H.R. 15041 and substantially equivalent S. 3119 are generally a step in the right direction.

However, so much authority is delegated to the Secretary of Transportation by these acts that their success in promoting safety will be altogether dependent on the regulations that are decreed by the Secretary, with the advice of a new Federal Boating Safety Advisory Council.

Great care must be taken that regulations and standards are specific so that little is left to the discretion or interpretation of inspectors or enforcement personnel in the field. Otherwise enforcement will not be uniform and the value of Federal preemption of this field will be lost. Award of a label or approval by any qualified inspector should be prima facie evidence of compliance with regulations in all geographic areas.

We in the boat repair and custom boat building industries are particularly interested in the regulations under these acts not discriminating against us by making inspection procedures unduly complex.

We can see how some prototype for mass-produced boats would serve the public interest, but such a program is full of pitfalls. A safe boat can be rendered unseaworthy by the improper application of ordinarily perfect safe equipment.

We should avoid a program which provides only for type acceptance of mass-produced craft and equipment. There must be practical means of qualifying innovative designs and the individual develop