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).

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 appendix to our testimony.

(The report referred to follows:)