Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

We have William Gaston, vice president of Glastron Boats, and representing the Boating Industry Association.

If you will, give for the record your name and the name of the gentleman with you.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GASTON, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, BOATING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS HALE BOGGS, JR.

Mr. GASTON. Yes, sir; first of all, I would like to apologize for laryngitis.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William Gaston. I am executive vice president of Glastron Boats, of Austin, Tex., and president of Bill Gaston Boats, a marine dealership in Austin. I am also chairman of the Government Relations Committee of the Boating Industry Association. It is in that latter capacity that I appear before you here today.

My associate on my right here is Tom Boggs, who is the legal counsel for the Boating Industry Association, as well as the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers. He was our navigator this morning and we apologize for being late, sir, but we did see quite a bit of your beautiful area on the way.

As I walked in, I was asked to read a very brief statement by a local resident here and with your permission, I would like to read a statement by Mr. John E. Suydam. His statement reads as follows:

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. SUYDAM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARTY BOATOWNERS ALLIANCE, INC.

Mr. GASTON. (reading). Because of a prior commitment I regret that I cannot appear in person. I have asked Mr. William Gaston, chairman of the BIA Government Relations Committee, to express to your committee our support of the views expressed by the Boating Industry Association and the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers.

I served with representatives of both of these national associations throughout our affiliation as member of the Coast Guard Motor Boat and Yacht Advisory Panel to the Merchant Marine Council and attended a meeting in Washington on February 9, 1970, together with a similar panel of advisers representing the National Association of State Boating Administrators, to review with the Commandant and his staff the various proposals to be made to the Congress. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and to the committee members for the opportunity to present this brief statement through Mr. Gaston.

It is signed by Mr. John E. Suydam, the National Party Boat Owners Alliance, Inc., of Lindenhurst, N.J.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. You may continue with your

own statement.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GASTON—resumed

Mr. GASTON. The Boating Industry Association is a national nonprofit association, representing approximately 550 manufacturers of all types of pleasure boating equipment and providing services of an educational and informational nature to the entire industry as well as to the boating public. In addition, our association is the nucleus for affiliated groups, including a Marine Distributors Council and the National Marine Representatives Association.

We also work with boatowners through our consumer divisions, the Outboard Boating Club of America (OBC) serving members of affiliated boating clubs, and the Boat Owners Council of America (BOCA), serving individual boatowners.

Our association is vitally interested in boating safety legislation and has closely followed H.R. 15041 and the similar legislation which has been proposed in previous years. In this connection we have worked closely with the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers. We endorse and concur with yesterday's remarks by Mr. Pete Wilson of NAEBM, and today I will attempt to avoid undue repetition of the matters that he covered.

As we have indicated in previous years' testimony before this committee, we agree that the presently effective boat safety laws are in need of considerable updating and revision. However, as previously indicated, we believe that the necessary additional legislation should be well focused to meet specific boating safety problems and not unnecessarily broad or burdensome.

The nature and scope of additional Federal involvement in the boating area should take into account the record and accomplishments of existing industry self-regulatory programs and should primarily concern itself with areas where the Federal effort will yield maximum results in terms of improving boat safety.

As was indicated in Mr. Wilson's testimony yesterday, the industry's record with respect to boating safety has been very good. Less than 6 percent of all boating accidents over the past 10 years have been attributable to "fault or hull, machinery, or equipment." Accidents due to these causes have contributed less than 10 percent of all injuries and less than 5 percent of all fatalities during this 10-year period.

Moreover, a substantial portion of these accidents involving equipment failures were, in fact, due to inadequate or nonexistent maintenance of the equipment. With the improper equipment maintenance category segregated out, the accidents, injuries, and fatalities attributable to defects in vessels or equipment sold can be seen to be a very small part of the total boating safety problem.

This safety record has not been obtained without conscious and diligent efforts by industry to establish and maintain proper safety standards.

One example of this effort is the certification program which has been conducted by the Boating Industry Association. You will note in the BLA Engineering Manuals, which we have furnished the committee, many standards devoted to considerations of safety. These standards have been adopted after thorough consideration, with the benefit of the expertise and experience of members of the Boating

Industry, State Boating Law Administrators, the Coast Guard, and other interested individuals and organizations.

Compliance with the standards is voluntary. However, BIA provides a strong economic motivation for compliance with these standards by permitting participating manufacturers who may or may not be BIA members-to use certification plates indicating that their boats comply with the association's safety standards.

In order to participate in the program, the boat manufacturer must submit every boat model in his line for prototype inspection, regarding both applicable Coast Guard requirements, and applicable BIA safety standards over and above such Coast Guard requirements. If this inspection indicates that the boats are manufactured in compliance with standards, a certification plate may be affixed to each boat sold by the participating manufacturer.

The program presently applies to most small boats under 26 feet in length, which account for over 80 percent of all units sold. Of this 80 percent, approximately two-thirds are now BIA-certified. The BIA certification plate is well known to the boating public and the boat manufacturers fully realize that certification is an important selling point for their product. For this reason, the certification program has been an effective means of maintaining high safety standards in a very major segment of the boating industry.

In addition to maintaining the certificate program, BIA actively works with such groups as the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, and representatives of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. In the past year, our safety standard and engineering efforts have been combined with those of the American Boat and Yacht Council, so that there is now a single broad-based standards-making organization for the pleasure marine field. I might add that one of the largest membership segments of the ABYC is the U.S. Coast Guard, a group which is clearly representative of the public interest in this area.

As indicated by the foregoing remarks, and by much of Mr. Wilson's testimony yesterday, the boating industry has long been concerned with appropriate standards of manufacture. As far as actual development and establishment of standards, we do not feel that there is room for a great deal of improvement in industry's efforts to date. However, we must note that there are a few members of the industry who do not comply with the standards which the industry has developed. Federal involvement in this area can make a truly substantial contribution by eliminating this noncomplying minority.

To accomplish this result, and I think the Coast Guard technical personnel would agree, the initial standards contemplated in the bill should parallel, to a large extent, existing voluntary industry standards (such as those of BIA and ABYC) and extend them on a mandatory basis to those manufacturers who do not presently follow them.

In this connection it should be noted that as compared with other industries, ours is small both in overall terms and in terms of industry concentration and the size of individual companies. Considering our good safety record as an industry on the one hand, and the somewhat fragile economic condition of our individual small com

panies on the other, we simply cannot afford unneeded, unproven and unworkable requirements.

Accordingly, we believe that it must be made clear that the bill's requirements for consideration of existing safety standards, which have been proved to be adequate and workable, must be given more than lip service.

If this is done, the initial areas for mandatory Federal standards will be those now covered by the voluntary industry standards. We trust, however, that such Federal standards will not totally preempt the promulgation of voluntary industry standards. We feel that it would be most undesirable to foreclose the motivation and opportunity for industry to continue in the development of safety standards beyond those required by the Coast Guard.

Similarly, the industry boat certification program should not be totally preempted and thereby prohibited from motivating manufacturers to sell safety beyond minimum legal requirements.

We are particularly gratified to see that the Coast Guard will be the prime administering agency of the responsibilities and authorities granted under the bill. We consider ourselves fortunate to be dealing with people whom we feel most competent, knowledgeable, and fair— though by no means do we always agree with them. We could ask no more than that their record of efficiency and effectiveness to date be maintained by their successors in administering this legislation.

This concludes my general remarks on the background and need for the legislation which the committee is now considering. Our association is in total agreement with the legislation's goal of promoting boating safety. We do, however, have some specific suggestions to offer for minor language changes in the bill which we feel will make it more workable for the boating industry and more efficient for the Coast Guard to administer.

In section 5(b) (1) of the bill (manufacturer standards) we are concerned with providing adequate leadtime for tooling and other changes that might be required by a new standard. We would sporest a year from some annual model changeover date perhaps to be selected by the Coast Guard for lead time required to make the engineering modifications instead of the minimum of 180 days, however with the present exception continued in cases of critical hazard where there is need for a faster implementation.

However, even in such urgent circumstances there should be a compliance flexibility since some companies cannot accomplish the changeover as fast as others.

We are not satisfied with section 5(b) (2) either. This provides for retrofit (alteration of existing units in the consumer's or dealer's hands). If a man has a 2-year-old boat and suddenly finds he has to make expensive alterations to comply with new standards he may just give up on boating. This grandfather clause should be strengthened by requiring the find of a high degree of hazard before the retrofit can be required.

Section 6 provides that a Boating Safety Advisory Council (established in another section) be consulted regarding standards. While under Federal law such groups can be advisory only, we would like for it to be included in on considerations of whether there is a need for a standard in the first instance-not just to meet to be told there

is a need and here is what the standard will be. We would, therefore, suggest that section 6 be revised to begin, "In establishing a need, formulating and **** and that section 6(4) have added "regarding these considerations" at the end.

Without going into a long history of a lawsuit our industry had with the Highway Safety Administration over standards, we are advised by our lawyers that we need stronger language in this bill to assure judicial review of an unreasonable standard. I would therefore suggest addition of a new subsection (5) in section 6 to read "issue a written statement upon issuance of a standard or regulation indicating his reasons for decision based upon these considerations." We also believe that it should be made clear that standards-making procedures should be in accordance with the formal rulemaking procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 12 (e) is intended to require boat operators for hire to be licensed. Present law requires such operators to be licensed if carrying six or more persons and this section seeks to extend that down to any passenger for hire situation, which is reasonable to us.

But, as drafted in the bill and interpreted by the courts, the definition of "for hire" means any consideration between the operator and his passengers. It includes dealer demonstration rides and even situations where one man buys the gas and the other brings the boat. This is neither necessary nor appropriate.

I would suggest adding the words "provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of any boat while being used for bona fide dealer demonstrations furnished without fee to a business invitee or for noncommercial purposes by two or more persons present on such boat as joint venturers."

Coast Guard statistics don't show dealer demonstrations to be a safety problem. Section 15 regarding notification of boat defects, however, is of great concern to us as presently drafted.

Under our industry certification program we are required by contract to notify and remedy at our cost all noncompliances with industry safety standards and Federal standards on our boats. This is also in the bill in section 15 and is acceptable. But we don't like the last sentence in section 15 (d) which lets the Secretary blast the bad news around.

For example, if the Secretary, upon being notified that the lights on one of our models aren't quite right, issues a press release so stating, people don't read it exactly. Rather, they read it that all of our boats are no good-nothwithstanding that the actual release clearly states. only the lights on one model are insufficient.

Whereas everybody needs a car and the auto companies are economically powerful, they can withstand such publicity interpretation. Boat companies are small and we can't. I therefore suggest a substitute subsection 15 (d) :

(d) Every manufacturer shall furnish to the Secretary a true or representative copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to purchasers or dealers requiring under this act. The Secretary may only disclose to the public so much of the information contained in the communication as he deems will contribute to boating safety.

We are especially disturbed about the potential effect of section 12 (a). That section prohibits the manufacture, construction, assembly,