[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44662-44665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16755]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG-1998-4734]


Exemptions of Manufacturers From Standards for Recreational 
Boats: Definitions of Watercraft

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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

[[Page 44663]]

American Canoe Association (the ACA) received after the close of the 
comment period raised a new issue on definitions of watercraft. This 
notice seeks comments on the desirability of establishing definitions 
of water-jet-powered watercraft, particularly PWC.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Document Management 
Facility on or before December 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: 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 http://dms.dot.gov.
    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 http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 
[email protected]. For questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets, 
Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    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.

Discussion of Comments

    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.

Comments From State Boating Officials

    A State Boating Law Administrator (SBLA) urges that we formally 
recognize a definition for PWC using the definitions from the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) and the Model Acts of the 
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and 
the PWIA as models to establish the definition. The SBLA states that we 
should refrain from referring to these vessels by a different name from 
PWC, because such a change would only create further confusion.
    A second SBLA also favors adoption of an amended definition for PWC 
that addresses other forms of propulsion, combining the definitions 
from the Model Act of NASBLA for PWC and from ISO 13590. The comment 
states that our definition should not limit the number of persons that 
may be carried, but should limit the length of the vessel to 13 feet or 
preferably 16 feet. The comment favors use of the term PWC because of 
the public's familiarity with its usage. If we stopped using the term, 
the change would confuse nearly everyone, substantially impeding 
implementation of programs relative to these vessels.
    A comment from NASBLA states that we should adopt an amended 
definition for PWC that addresses other forms of propulsion, combining 
the just-discussed definitions. The comment states that we should 
refrain from referring to these vessels by a different name from PWC, 
because everyone is familiar with the term and our changing it would be 
counter-productive. According to the comment, many States have passed 
statutes and instated rules on PWC and have adopted all or part of the 
Model Act of NASBLA for PWC, and any change in the terminology 
therefore would have a large effect on uniformity of boating laws 
throughout the country.

Comments From the PWIA

    A comment from the PWIA states that there is no need for us to 
recognize or adopt a formal Federal definition of PWC separate from the 
existing definitions of vessel, motor vessel, recreational vessel, 
boat, and motorboat in relevant Federal statutes and rules. According 
to the comment, the existing definitions reflect a principled approach 
to retain broad definitions that cover a wide range of types of 
vessels, rather than attempt to create separate definitions for each 
different or new type. The comment states that the existing definitions 
encompass all past and current models of PWC and will cover any future 
models, regardless of their size, mode of propulsion, cargo and towing 
capacities, or other features. The comment states that PWC have 
undergone substantial changes in design and production and that the 
continuing evolution of the features of the vessels makes having a 
separate definition for PWC impracticable and unnecessary, especially 
considering that we have not attempted to develop or adopt separate 
definitions for other types of motorboats, such as bass boats, 
airboats, or racing boats.
    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,

[[Page 44664]]

according to the comment, the States have shown that they do not want a 
uniform definition of PWC, and instead have used their discretion to 
develop definitions necessary to accomplish their interests in 
regulating the use of PWC within their jurisdictions.
    With regard to the term thrillcraft, the comment states that, in 
addition to being pejorative, the term has no clearly understood 
meaning; similarly, the words sport boat would appear to encompass a 
wide variety of recreational vessels. According to the comment, use of 
the term Jet Ski, is also inappropriate, because the term is a 
registered trademark.

Comments From the ACA

Definitions Recommended by the ACA
    The ACA asks that we phase out the use of the general term PWC for 
jet-pump-powered watercraft on which the operator and any passengers do 
not ride within the confines of a conventional hull, and that we 
replace it with a more specific term such as Personal Water Jet or 
Personal Jet Craft. The ACA recommends that we adopt the following 
definition or something close to it for the craft currently referred to 
as PWC:

    The term, ----------, means any watercraft that uses an engine 
powering a water-jet pump, or other form of jet thrust, as its 
primary source of propulsion, and that is designed to be operated by 
a person or persons sitting or standing on or astride the craft, 
rather than within the confines of the hull. These craft are often 
designed specifically for high-speed use and performance, and are 
often capable of carrying multiple passengers and gear.

    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 Jet Boat, Jet Craft, or Water Jet to identify 
such watercraft. The ACA recommends that we adopt the following 
definition or something close to it for these craft:

    The term, ----------, means any watercraft that uses an engine 
powering a water-jet pump, or other form of jet thrust, as its 
primary source of propulsion, and that is designed to be operated 
from within the confines of the hull or cockpit. These craft are 
often designed specifically for high-speed use and performance, and 
are often capable of carrying multiple passengers and gear.

    According to the ACA, the general term PWC is ambiguous and could 
just as easily describe any watercraft designed for operation by a 
single person--a canoe, kayak, catamaran, rowboat, or some other such 
craft. It states that the manufacturers of no particular type of craft 
should be able to simply lay claim to a general term. It notes that 
Webster's Dictionary defines the term personal to mean of, related to, 
or affecting a person and defines the term watercraft to mean craft for 
water transport. It states that these are real words with concrete 
meanings and thus that their usage together has a concrete meaning that 
is broad and not exclusively related to jet-pump-powered watercraft.
Confusion Concerning Watercraft Alleged by the ACA
    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 PWC is already 
widespread. Across the nation, there are public watercraft-launching 
areas that do not allow the launching of so-called PWC of the jet-
powered kind. In areas that intend to forbid the launching of jet-
powered PWC, other boaters have misinterpreted signs and literature to 
forbid the launching of all privately owned watercraft. The same 
confusion often occurs when outfitters of canoes and kayaks advertise 
PWC rentals: People believe that they can rent jet-powered Personal 
Watercraft.
    The ACA believes that this problem is almost certain to get worse 
as the generic term watercraft is increasingly used as a term referring 
to specific water-jet-powered craft, contrary to its true definition as 
a term that refers to all waterborne vessels.
Operational Issues and PWC From the Perspective of the ACA
    The ACA states that there is ample evidence that craft powered by 
water-jet pumps, especially those currently referred to as Personal 
Watercraft, are very different from traditional types of boats and need 
to be regulated differently in order to ensure the safety of other 
waterway users--including canoeists and kayakers--as well as the safety 
of the operators of the PWC themselves.
    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.

Other Comments

    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 PWC. According to the comment, other terms such as jet 
skis, water scooters, and sport boats are not adequate, because the 
industry itself has, for the most part, adopted PWC in self-
description.
    A comment from the NTSB notes that for industry standards to be 
consistently applied manufacturers will need a clear definition of PWC.
    A comment from a private association engaged in advocacy for 
national parks states that we should formally recognize a definition 
for PWC that includes larger vessels and jet boats. It favors a 
definition addressing design characteristics and end use, rather than 
specific dimensions. It also favors inclusion of all vessels whose 
primary purpose is thrill-related. It states that PWC are distinct in 
design and in intended use from traditional recreational boats, and 
that they should be defined as thrillcraft as they are in the State of 
Hawaii. It also states that the definition from the PWIA is inadequate, 
because it doesn't encompass all types of PWC, for example, special-
purpose vessels propelled by PWC, and jet boats. The comment states 
that the definition from the PWIA fails to recognize that PWC are 
designed and marketed as high-speed thrillcraft meant to be used 
aggressively.
    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

[[Page 44665]]

waters that conventional motorboats can't navigate.

Call for Comments

    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 ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only 
one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in 
an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period. Your comments will help us 
to determine whether to initiate a rulemaking in accordance with the 
petitioner's request.

Questions

    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 PWC that 
lack 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? Should any of them cover similar 
propeller-driven recreational vessels? How many people should such 
vessels carry, and how large should they be allowed to get, before they 
fall outside the definitions?
    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?

    Dated: June 24, 2002.
Kenneth T. Venuto,
Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Director of Operations Policy.
[FR Doc. 02-16755 Filed 7-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P