And then there are always the irresponsible producers who are today immune. In fact, industry readily admits that one-fourth of all boat and equipment manufacturers do not comply with their basic standards. It is not questionable that boats are being manufactured and sold to the public which do not meet the industry's self-imposed minimum safety standards. More than that, there is also little question boats are being sold today that do not meet the relative limited Government requirements requirements under existing law that today can only be enforced against the boatowner. We feel that it is now time that the boat manufacturer-as with the automobile manufacturer-assume a legal responsibility to assure that all requirements are met right up to the time that the boat is placed into the water. In implementing this responsibility, we strongly support section 15 of the act requiring boat manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety defects discovered after sale and authorizing the Secretary to disclose this information to the public. We believe that the boating industry should follow the pattern set for the auto industry to keep not only original owners fully informed of possible safety hazards built into their products but also second, third, and subsequent buyers who but for public notice would be unaware of these defects. We would be opposed to any change restricting the authority of the Secretary in this respect. The bill is necessarily broad in the authority given to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and we approve of the flexibility provided here. It would be a mistake to tie the hands of the Secretary-except, of course, by the usual protective administrative procedures in promulgating new regulations-and to burden the statute with detail that could be regretted later. As standards are determined and formulated, there will be ample opportunity for industry and the public to consult and have their views considered by the Secretarythe proposed law makes this consultation mandatory. Another major objective of the bill addresses itself to State boating programs and coordination and financial assistance or grants (up to 75 percent of total costs) by the Federal Government. We feel the approach taken by the bill is a good one. It retains responsibility for implementation at the State level while promoting a very necessary degree of uniformity among the States by the standards of qualification to be set up by the Federal agency. And, of course, it provides the generally hard-pressed States with the much-needed funds necessary to make old and new boating safety programs work. The Federal grant-in-aid approach is the alternative to direct and total Federal action because in any event the task of operator education, enforcement patrols, safety inspections, accident investigations, emergency services, and any number of other safety programs must be carried out, and on a much larger scale than they have ever been before. If the States will not accept this assistance and impetus offered by the Federal Government, then the Federal Government must get these same tasks started. Toward this end, therefore, we would recommend that the bill be broadened in this part to permit the diversion of funds appropriated for State grants into interim federally conducted programs of the same nature and purpose to the extent that States do not move to qualify themselves and thereby utilize the appropriations or attempt to fulfill the necessary programs. While the subject of operator licensing, suggested as a possible State boating program in the 1968 version of the Recreational Boat Safety Act, has been deleted, we are pleased to see that the 1969 measure will leave this matter up to the States as a possible "experimental program to enhance boating safety," and also possibly under section 22 of the act providing for safety certificates. Some States have only a small boating community and comparatively little problem with safety which may not warrant administering a formal statewide certification program. However, a State could determine that some form of certification or licensing is needed in heavily congested boating areas as evidence of a boatman's knowledge of waterway rules and basic safety practices. A recent survey report by this association tabulating the results of 9,816 boatman, involving both association members and nonmembers, indicates that boatman in heavily populated areas actually prefer a licensing program. We have included a copy of this report as an apvendix to our testimony. (The report referred to follows:) INTRODUCTION Boat Owners Association of The United States (BOAT/U.S.) has completed a comprehensive nationwide survey of almost 10,000 Association member and non-member boatmen to determine the boating public's attitude on the basic question: "SHOULD OPERATORS OF RECREATIONAL BOATS BE LICENSED?" The results of the survey -- and the public's answer to the question are presented in detail in this report. Boat Owners Association of The United States is an independent, non-profit service association of boatmen. Its membership of approximately 10,000 is located in all 50 states. BOAT/U.S. is not connected with any company, trade organization or government agency. It has not yet taken an official stand on the subject of licensing. This report does not purport to make a case for or against licensing, nor to touch upon the feasibility of implementing a licensing program. The only purpose of the survey and this study is to ascertain and report as objectively as possible the views of the nation's boatmen. The survey was not restricted to the membership of BOAT/U.S. nor to any geographic area, owners of a particular type boat or age group. The survey included all types of owners and operators who use the waterways for recreation. Richard Schwartz December 1, 1969 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The boating public was polled in two groups utilizing two methods. A mail poll was used among the Association's members and a personal poll was conducted among boatmen at five major boat shows during 1968 in New York, Boston, Suffolk Downs, Washington, D.C. and Chicago where, in most locations, BOAT/U.S. maintained information display booths. The majority of survey participants were in the latter group. A uniform 8" x 5" pre-printed poll card, shown below, was handed to individuals by BOAT/U.S. staff members and locally recruited personnel at the various shows. Most persons were first asked whether they were boat owners or operators. Those who answered negatively were not given a poll card. Those who answered affirmatively were given a poll card with the request: "Sir, may we have your opinion on this question?" Most of them immediately completed the card, and deposited it at the booth. Others took the poll card with them and mailed it to the Association after the show, utilizing the standard, selfaddressed, postage-paid business reply format printed on the reverse side of all cards. Each poll card listed a series of questions for the participant to indicate his preference in favor of or opposition to boat operator licensing. Each completed poll card was checked for duplication. More than one card received from the same person, or member of a family (same surname and address) were excluded from tabulation. All poll cards collected or received by mail were turned over to an independent auditor for data reduction and compilation. Respondents who did not complete the lower portion of the card describing experience and boat, but who listed their name and address, were included in survey totals and are shown as "unspecified" in the detailed tables of this report. OPINION SURVEY BOAT DRIVERS' LICENSES? We boatmen must take a stand! Boat/U.S. needs your views on ... |