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 BIA 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

of our neighboring States. We would hope that the general registration system, as it has evolved from the boating bill of 1958, would be sufficient in the eyes of the Secretary. The flexibility of the bill seems to allow a restructuring of the existing registration system. We feel in the New England area that a tremendous amount of time and effort has been expended attempting to standardize registration among the neighboring States. Too many changes could produce further timelags and further delaying needed reciprocity in terms of accepting another State's registration during the short boating season for visitors from out-of-State. We have boatowners in the New England area who, at times, in the recent past, have carried as many as three different boat registrations in order to boat in areas where their families wished to do so.

Realizing that the areas that I have touched on have been covered by the major industry associations and other segments of the industry, further, that the committee has sagely taken these comments, as I understand it, and is attempting to make the necessary improvements to the bill, we would therefore, strongly recommend passage of House bill 15041.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. King. The committee recognizes this problem with section 12 and we will rectify it by an amendment. Mr. Keith.

Mr. KEITH. I am glad to hear your observations on section 12 and trust that you can give us the suggested amendment.

What would you suggest for a leadtime?

Mr. KING. We feel that the 1 year that has been proposed by the manufacturers association is realistic except in hazardous situations, particularly in areas where you have a great deal of tooling involved, engines and things of this nature. It is very difficult to even buy tools, as I understand it on 6 months' leadtime today.

Mr. KEITH. I have no further questions.

Mr. CLARK. Counsel would like to raise a question.

Mr. CORRADO. Mr. King, this has to do with the criminal provisions section. As you know, we have had quite a few comments and suggestions during the course of the hearings as to the criminal penalties section and there have been various comments that there are already existing Federal laws that would deal with the carriage of an improperly manufactured boat across State lines or an illegal boat across State lines. Could you tell me, do you have any knowledge of such laws? I am trying to tie this down, if I can.

Mr. KING. I don't specifically have knowledge, but I think in most cases the laws are not so much Federal as they are State.

I think that our local associations and our boating administrators. particularly in the New England area, I know, have worked very hard to cooperate in these areas and build a very close personal relationship on these problems.

For instance, where we have theft involved, registration is very important thing when theft is involved. Through our group associations, we pass on the serial numbers and ask that they be posted in the yacht clubs and dealerships to assist in this. I think there is more done on the State level than there is on the Federal level in this area at present.

Mr. CORRADO. Of course, this will be a Federal law, so I would be reluctant to recommend eliminating the criminal provisions of a Federal law when there was no other existing Federal sanction. That is really part of the problem. If there are other existing Federal sanctions, I think we ought to try to get them out in the open and find out what they are. That is the only thing I had.

Mr. KING. $50,000 seems to be a stiff penalty in our eyes.

Mr. CORRADO. Since you bring that point up I would like to comment on that a moment. That is the civil penalty. I am afraid that is misunderstood. That is for a related series of violations and not just one violation. If it is viewed in that particular context, I do not think it really is excessive. If you view it for any single incident, then I would be inclined to agree with you, but the way the bill reads, it is for any related series, so I think it is reasonable. I am glad you raised that because I think it is good to get that point in the record. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. King.

Our next witness is Thomas J. Legere, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Motorboats, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, Mass. STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. LEGERE, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DIVISION OF MOTORBOATS, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. LEGERE. My name is Thomas J. Legere, State boating administrator for the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Keith, I just want to be recorded as supporting this bill. I spend many hours in the Northeast with the Northeast administrator and the national administrator working over this legislation almost piece by piece. There are areas that may be a little bit difficult for people in the industry to absorb right away.

In answer to Bill King on the license bill, we have gone through that and we particularly ask at this time that it be eliminated from this bill. We have taken up, and I think all of the administrators agree, that an educational program would be far better than licensing, and we are all leaning toward this.

In Massachusetts, to bring you up to date, we have gone from 103 to 115.000 registrations. So, you can see that the industry being such a mobile industry that we do need uniformity and it can only come from a national level.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. We are very hapy to have you here and to have your comments on this bill. We think that something has to be done, and we are glad to have your support.

Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Ralph Thacher, National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, 537 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, Conn.

STATEMENT OF RALPH THACHER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENGINE & BOAT MANUFACTURERS, GREENWICH, CONN.

Mr. THACHER. Good morning, everybody.

I am Ralph Thacher, and I live in Marion, Mass., and I have spent virtually a lifetime in and around boats, and in the boating industry both as a manufacturer, and in the service and sales of boats. So, I have had quite a bit of background and some heartaches.

The interesting position that I have had in the National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers for the past 8 years as a director and as an officer of it was also as chairman of its Government Relations Committee. In this particular job, I had the opportunity along with other associates to work with the Coast Guard on the drafting of this legislation that you are considering today. I think this was unique in many ways that industry and the interested parties did have an opportunity to work very closely with the authors of the bill.

The Coast Guard worked this bill up and we went through eight drafts and we joked about the seventh and the seventh-and-a-half draft until finally it was presented to the Congressmen who finally introduced the bill.

With that little story, I would like to tackle a couple of points that we are still at odds on. They are not too serious and others have touched upon them here, but I think they should be in the record as our feeling, and hopefully amendments or changes will be made to correct these deficiencies that we see.

We are very much gratified to see that the Coast Guard will be the prime administering agent for the final authority granted under the bill. We consider ourselves fortunate to be dealing with people whom we feel most competent, knowledgeable and fair. We do not always agree with them, but we ask no more than their record of efficiency and effectiveness to date be maintained by their sucessors in administering this legislation.

I would like to touch on something here. I mentioned successors. For the past 2 years, we worked with Admiral Morrison, Captain Norris, Captain Hayes who is here and, more recently, Admiral McClellan who has been the Chief of the Office of Boating Safety. Strikingly enough, we got along with these people well, we had great faith in their ability, in their word and great trust in their taking care of our needs promptly, efficiently and fairly. But we always recognize the fact that the services being as they are, transfers do occur and new people come on the scene. Therefore, we want to be sure the enacted legislation is something we can live with and that sucessors to the people we have dealt with will administer in the way we understand they are going to.

Just yesterday afternoon I learned that Admiral McClellan has received orders to be transferred out of the Chief's Office to Seattle and, therefore, we are going to be dealing very shortly with a new boss for Captain Hayes over here. We don't know him. We assume he is going to be another good Coast Guardsman, but we don't know. So, we want this bill in good form at the time you fellows enact it in Congress.

I would like to make a few specific comments. Our Association is in total agreement with the legislation's goal of promoting boating safety. We do, however, have these specific suggestions. They are minor language changes, but they are important.

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 suggest a year instead of the minimum 180 days 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