Coast Guard, DOT.
Request for comments.
In a notice published on October 19, 1999, the Coast Guard solicited comments so it could better respond to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (the PWIA). The petition asked the Coast Guard to authorize a new method of complying with laws on safety of recreational boating as they relate to personal watercraft (PWC). A comment from the
Comments and related material must reach the Document Management Facility on or before December 30, 2002.
To make sure your comments and related material [referred to USCG 1998–4734] do not enter the docket more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
(2) By hand delivery to room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329.
(3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202–493–2251.
(4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, at the address listed above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at
For questions on this proposed rule, contact Mr. Alston Colihan, Project Manager, Office of Boating Safety, Coast Guard, by telephone at 202–267–0981 or by e-mail at
The Coast Guard published a request for comments on October 19, 1999 [64 FR 56287], so it could better respond to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the PWIA. The petition asked us to authorize a new method of complying with laws on safety of recreational boating as they relate to PWC. Because PWC are physically different from conventional boats, they cannot comply with current standards of the Coast Guard for safety. Therefore, manufacturers of PWC must apply for exemptions from these standards and demonstrate equivalent levels of safety. The petition suggested that we replace the exemption process with a requirement for manufacturers to comply with certain standards generated by the industry itself. The comment period closed on January 19, 2000.
The Coast Guard received 11 timely comments in response to that petition. But a comment from the ACA, received after the close of the comment period, raised a new issue on definitions of watercraft. While we haven't decided how or even whether to proceed with rulemaking, this request seeks public comments on the question of what to call PWC or how to define them.
We received 11 timely comments about the notice and a request from the ACA to re-open the comment period and deal with a new issue. Here follow summaries of the comments and the request, and an analysis of the definitions propounded by the request.
A State Boating Law Administrator (SBLA) urges that we formally recognize a definition for
A second SBLA also favors adoption of an amended definition for
A comment from NASBLA states that we should adopt an amended definition for
A comment from the PWIA states that there is no need for us to recognize or adopt a formal Federal definition of
The comment further states that the standards recommended by the ISO and SAE include a definition of PWC, and that the purpose of the definition is to specify those vessels that are subject to those standards. While there are other boats that might fit under this definition, except that they are powered by outboard motors, the comment states, the standards of the ISO and SAE are thus not applicable to such vessels. The comment also notes that somewhat different definitions of PWC appear in the Model State legislation of the PWIA and NASBLA and that the purpose of those definitions is to specify those vessels that are subject to States' age restrictions, operational rules, and livery requirements for PWC. The comment states that many States have modified NASBLA's definition of PWC to account for particular States' circumstances and policies. As a result,
With regard to the term
The ACA asks that we phase out the use of the general term
The ACA also asks that we adopt specific terminology to describe water-jet-powered craft on which that the operator and passengers do ride within the confines of conventional hulls. The ACA recommends the use of a term such as
According to the ACA, the general term
The ACA believes that what it considers improper usage of this terminology creates the likelihood of confusion on the nation's waterways and throughout the regulatory process. According to the ACA, the confusion caused by the industry's use of the term
The ACA believes that this problem is almost certain to get worse as the generic term
The ACA states that there is ample evidence that craft powered by water-jet pumps, especially those currently referred to as
The ACA states that the need for these official definitions for regulatory purposes is obvious. Watercraft powered by water-jet pumps have significantly different operational characteristics from craft with traditional inboard and outboard motors; they are used differently from craft with traditional inboard and outboard motors; they are designed specifically for high-speed use; and, because of their unique design, they have different impacts on the environment and on other users of waterways.
A comment from an association promoting the safety of PWC states that we should formally recognize a definition of PWC because there is a mandate for change in the design of PWC to include capabilities of off-throttle steering and braking. According to the comment, subcategories of PWC might include craft designed to carry more than one person. The comment offers the definition from the PWIA as a simple definition of
A comment from the NTSB notes that for industry standards to be consistently applied manufacturers will need a clear definition of
A comment from a private association engaged in advocacy for national parks states that we should formally recognize a definition for
A comment from an environmental association believes that the definition from the PWIA is seriously flawed. It mentions the special-purpose vessels propelled by PWC and states that merely adding appendages to a PWC should not disqualify it from being regulated as a PWC. The comment also states that the definition from the PWIA excludes vessels such as jet boats that are clearly PWC. According to the comment, jet boats share, besides technology, many of the performance characteristics of modern PWC, such as the ability to perform extreme maneuvers and turns, achieve remarkably high speeds, and reach
The Coast Guard encourages you to submit comments and related material responding to the suggestions of the ACA; others just discussed; the questions that follow; or other issues concerning definitions of watercraft. We also welcome any other comments in connection with this notice. Please include with your submission your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [USCG–1998–4734], indicate the specific questions in the next four paragraphs to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
1. Are the difficulties associated with the use of water-jet-driven recreational vessels so severe that they require the Coast Guard to adopt fresh terms and definitions, so as to describe those vessels and distinguish them from conventional propeller-driven vessels?
2. Should the Coast Guard adopt fresh terms and definitions to identify the recreational vessels now generally referred to as
3. Should the Coast Guard adopt fresh terms and definitions to identify other types of recreational vessels propelled by water-jet pumps that have conventional hulls? If so, what? Is the definition suggested by the ACA adequate for one? Should any terms and definitions depend upon a minimum of water-jet thrust?
4. Should the Coast Guard adopt fresh terms and definitions to identify other types of recreational vessels such as canoes, kayaks, houseboats, bowriders, bassboats, and jonboats? If so, why?