Sec. 27. Allocation of Federal funds

On page 19, line 18, delete "two" and insert "three".

On page 19, line 25, after "Act.", delete the rest of the line.

On page 20, delete lines 1 through 4.

COMMENTS: It is virtually the unanimous recommendation of the Administrators that the exemption from numbering afforded boats of less than 10 horsepower be dropped. One of the greatest areas of nonuniformity is in the registration of craft, with the preponderance of States numbering all powered vessels. Since the identification of all boats is considered essential, there is no justification for continuing a highly arbitrary exemption of this nature.

On page 20, line 5, delete "second" and insert "third".

On page 20, line 9, delete "bear".

On page 20, delete lines 10 through 18 and substitute the following: "be determined as follows:

"(1) One-third of the total federal funds available for allocation in each fiscal year shall be distributed equally among the several applying states. "(2) One-third of the total federal funds available for allocation in each fiscal year shall be distributed among the several applying states based on the proportion of vessels numbered by each applying state in accordance with this Act to the total number of such vessels numbered nationally in all applying States in accordance with this Act; and

"(3) One-third of the total federal funds available for allocation in each fiscal year shall be allocated among the several applying states on the basis of the proportion of each State's expenditures on accepted boating safety programs. For purposes of this subsection, State expenditures shall include all expenditures made by the State and political subdivisions thereof under a State-administered program."

COMMENTS: The State formula for the division of any federal funds appropriated appears to be much more equitable than the arrangement contained in the Bill. By basing the formula on a per capita distribution and upon a distribution based upon the ratio of numbered vessels, a State with a reasonable-size recreational boat fleet which does not have an adequate enforcement or safety program will have the strongest possible inducement to establish such. This formula would also permit the States to reasonably budget ahead in anticipation of a determinable base grant from the Secretary. Finally, this formula permits the allocation of funds during the fiscal year in which they are to be expended rather than requiring a total expenditure of funds by the State subject to partial reimbursement. Experience with programs which are conducted subject to reimbursement indicates they are invariably the subject of considerable contest and are usually unpopular

Striking subsection (d) is consistent with the earlier amendment proposed for Section 25 and is suggested for the same purpose.

Sec. 28. Allocation limitations; unobligated or unallocated funds

On page 20, line 24, between the words "in" and "fiscal" insert "any".

On page 20, line 24, after "year", insert a period and delete the balance of the line.

On page 20, delete all of line 25.

On page 21, delete lines 1 through 4.

COMMENTS: The purpose of these amendments is to establish the level of federal funding at 75% of the State's boating safety program. The States have no desire to enter into a cooperative endeavor with the Federal government in this area when the assistance being provided is of a declining balance nature and becomes totally unavailable after five years. Certainly if the States have been unable up to now to conduct satisfactory programs to combat current boating ills, they will not have any greater capability to do so in 1976. Adoption of language of this nature could actually hamper the initiation of boating safety and enforcement programs by the States because their legislatures do not wish to face the responsibility for total financing after 1976. Recreational boating is continuing to steadily increase, making it highly unlikely the problem will be any less acute in 1976 than it is today.

Sec. 30. Appropriations authorizations for State boating safety programs On page 22, line 5, delete the words "$5,000,000 for the" and "ending June" and insert "$7,500,000 in any" and add a comma after "year".

On page 22, line 6, delete the entire line.

On page 22, line 7, delete the words "fiscal years,”.

COMMENTS: This has been one of the most hotly-debated Sections of this Act among the members of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. Virtually all Administrators were dissatisfied with the level of appropriations provided by the Bill but agreement on what this amount should be has proven to be difficult. After a poll of the States to determine the extent of current programs, it was agreed to recommend at this time that the appropriations authorization be established at $7,500,000 which would at least be adequate to supplement existing programs.

In justification of this amount, it should be noted that the thrust of this Bill is to place on the State level the responsibility for conducting boating safety programs and enforcement activities. These activities must necessarily include all State waters whether navigable waters of the United States or purely intrastate waters. As a result, this program will develop increased program activities on all waters and should reduce Coast Guard responsibilities in the field of enforcement.

It should also be noted that the Federal government, through its programs of building dams, creating impoundments, developing harbors and waterways, and improving recreational facilities in its National Parks and Forests, has burdened the States with problems of increased enforcement responsibility for which they are not funded at present. Much of the development has been accomplished through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, of which the nation's boat owners are substantial contributors through their boat fuel taxes. Sec. 31. Payments

On page 22, line 12, delete "two" and insert "three".

On page 22, line 17, delete "second" and insert "third".

COMMENTS: It is the belief of the State Boating Administrators that these amendments will assist in program planning and will permit the successful application for program funds from the various State legislatures.

Sec. 32. Consultation and cooperation

On page 24, line 13, delete "and local".

COMMENTS: If these programs are to be administered at the State level, it is important that the State not be bypassed through consultations with local units of government. Such a procedure can only weaken the State program as well as any local-level programs. The States should be consulted in all matters concerning boating and boating safety within the particular State.

Sec. 33. Boating Safety Advisory Council

On page 25, delete lines 6 through 12 and insert the following: "(a) The Secretary shall establish a National Boating Safety Advisory Council which shall not exceed twenty-one members. One-third of the members will be State officials responsible for State boating safety programs; one-third will be representatives of boat and associated equipment manufacturers; and the balance will be representatives from the Federal government, boating organizations, and the general public. Additional persons from those sources may be appointed to panels which will assist the Council in the performance of its functions."

COMMENTS: The intent of this Section appears to be to assure the States, who will be actively conducting the actual safety and enforcement activities, and industry, which will be regulated in the area of construction and performance standards, that they will be given an opportunity to participate in the review of proposed regulations, standards, or legislation which would deal with them. This is a most desirable goal which can be more readily facilitated through the appropriate division of membership on the Council to assure each interest is adequately represented. Under the present language of the Bill, there is no requirement that a specific interest be adequately represented or, indeed, represented at all.

Sec. 34. Criminal penalties

On page 26, line 16, delete "in a grossly negligent or reckless manner". COMMENTS: A criminal penalty is provided here for violation of an undefined act. Section 12(d) prohibits the use of a vessel in a negligent manner but the penalty is described in terms of gross negligence. By deleting the words "in a grossly negligent or reckless manner", the penalty again fits the defined crime. If additional penalties are desired for gross negligence, a new subsection should be added to Section 12 describing and prohibiting such operation.

Sec. 37. Casualty reporting systems

On page 29, delete lines 3 through 24.

On page 30, delete lines 1 through 4.

COMMENTS: It is the belief of the States that the Casualty Reporting System is best left to regulation where it can be more easily amended as chansing conditions might require.

Mr. BEGHIN. These amendments represent the collective thinking of the association, and Wisconsin, being a member State, participated in the discussion and voting which led to the drafting in their present form.

The U.S. Coast Guard in its statement presented to this committee on March 23, 1970, by Rear Adm. Joseph J. McClelland, stressed the need of a joint Federal-State effort. The following are quotations from the text of this statement taken from an article which appeared in the publication entitled "Proceedings of the Merchant Marine Council," Volume 27, Number 6, dated June 1970:

This means that to attack the boating safety problem adequately, state participation is vital. On waters of the United States where both Federal and State authorities have jurisdiction, we look to the State and local jurisdictions to enforce those safety requirements with which the operator must comply. Police activity related to the individual should remain a state function. From a purely economic viewpoint, it is less costly to enforce the law on internal waters with State and local officials than with Coast Guard personnel. Indeed, the educational role is one we all share; industry, Federal and State governments together with the many fine nonprofit public organizations.

I wholeheartedly agree, State participation is vital; Federal Government does look to the States to enforce operator requirements; it would be more economical to enforce the boating laws on internal waters with State and local officials; and that the educational role is one that is shared by industry, Federal and State governments and many fine nonprofit public organizations. However, the individual States need revenue on a continuing basis in order to operate an efficient, effective boating enforcement and educational program.

Wisconsin is presently faced with a possible reduction in its boating program because of a shortage of funds caused, not only by inflation, but by the great influx of nonresident boaters operating on our waters. Because of this shortage, we would be unable to fully participate in a funding program operated on a descending scale over a 5-year period. Since the outlook for additional State funds is doubtful, it would be necessary to return to our present program after the 5 year funding program expired.

Looking at H.R. 15041 from a purely economic viewpoint, Wisconsin would hesitate to enter into a cooperative endeavor with the Federal Government in this area unless the funding is established on a realistic basis.

In closing, I would like to state that adoption of the present sections covering appropriations and allocations would not serve to promote a boating safety and educational program of the desired level. Therefore, Wisconsin requests the committee to support the NASBLA amendments and to pay particular attention to those amendments dealing with appropriations and allocations, namely, sections 27 through 31. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

We appreciate the difficulties of the States with respect to the funding aspect of the bill which, in some cases, may prove inadequate.

However, it must be borne in mind, as we pointed out in previous hearings, that this is an administration bill and the $5 million per year for 5 years and declining percentage of allocation are administration features approved by the Bureau of the Budget.

Change in these features could result in withdrawal of administration support for the bill.

In addition, all of us are painfully aware of the tight money situation. Thus, the administration and Congress are especially sensitive to fiscal priorities at this time.

I just wanted to get this in the record once again, Mr. Beghin, especially in light of your comments with respect to the funding aspects of the bill.

We do appreciate your comments, though, and if you have any further questions or anything about the bill, we would be very happy to answer them.

Mr. BEGHIN. I have nothing further.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, and thank you for coming, and we are sorry we couldn't get to you yesterday.

Mr. CLARK. We have Richard Schwartz, executive director, Boat Owners Association of the United States.

Mr. Schwartz, we are very glad to have you with us and sorry we couldn't get to you yesterday.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHWARTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SCHWATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Richard Schwartz, executive director of the Boat Owners Association of the United States, generally known as "BOAT/U.S.", with headquarters at 1028 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.

BOAT/U.S. is the only independent, broad-service organization of boatmen in the country today. Our organization is not affiliated with any manufacturer, dealer, or any other industry or private group.

Our membership, now exceeding 10.000, and located in all 50 States, is made up entirely of boatowners and boating enthusiasts. We firmly believe that our membership represents a national cross section of more serious boatmen of this country.

It is a particular pleasure to have this opportunity to comment before your committee because, first, we apparently are one of the few representatives in these hearings who can state unequivocally that our only interest is the ordinary "man on the water"-the boatman for whom, in the end, all this consideration is for and who will be most affected by the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by your committee.

Second, we cannot help but feel that we have assisted in paving the way for the approaches which the proposed legislation reflects in its objective to promote recreational boating safety.

Almost 4 years ago, in October 1966, we publicly stressed the need for placing increased responsibility on manufacturers in connection with the enforcement of Coast Guard ventilation regulations. Then, in the summer of 1967, in our testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations during their study of recreational boating

safety we elaborated on the necessity for setting up minimum safety standards for boats and equipment and the regulation of manufacturers under these standards.

It is very gratifying to see our lone position back then in the firm legislative proposal now under consideration here before this distinguished committee.

In passing, I also would like to note and express our wholehearted approval of significant steps taken by the Coast Guard in addressing themselves to recreational boating activity since we called for a new focus and reorientation by them during the 1967 hearings. We applaud the vigor with which they are now handling the boating safety problem.

With more and more leisure time available, Americans are turning to boating as one of their major recreational activities and there is no indication that the upswing in boating will taper off.

There are now an estimated 8.6 million recreational boats on the water today and a growth rate of 4,000 boats a week, some authorities report. With a situation like this, we are very rapidly increasing the magnitude of the safety problem and have reached the point where steps are now overdue if we are to control the problem in the next few years.

In addition to mounting traffic on the waterways, the fast growth also reflects another problem-a larger number of inexperienced and novice boatowners. We feel, therefore, that the burden has to shift more and more to the knowledgeable, and they are the manufacturers and dealers.

In 1967, we had testified:

If anyone is more qualified than the boat buyer to understand and implement safety requirements, it is certainly the manufacturer who produces the boat.

As matters stand today, the entire responsibility for ascertaining that a boat is properly equipped to meet legal requirements and constructed to meet minimum safety standards falls completely upon the boatowner-a novice perhaps who may barely be able to operate a boat safely, no less understand the complexity of boat construction and design and the details of equipment regulations.

I hasten to add that even experienced pleasure boatmen-seasoned skippers who have been boating for years-are not familiar with engineering and construction principles or with all equipment requirements. So, we feel that the most significant objective of this bill is the setting of boat construction and equipment standards and their enforcement at the manufacturers' level.

We do want to acknowledge the strides that manufacturers have made on their own initiative during the past several years. The efforts to determine and adont standards within their own industry have been commendable and have made a noteworthy contribution to safer boating.

However, their entire effort is a voluntary one. They can only implore their fellow manufacturers to conform to the standards their own committees agree upon. Neither competition nor self-interest will force all manufacturers to accept these standards (and in some cases those same factors could well lead to cost-saving corner-cutting).