NATIONAL BOATING SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Coast Guard Representatives Present

Captain Scott Evans

Chief, Office of Boating Safety

Mr. Jeffrey N. Hoedt

Executive Director, NBSAC

Mr. Dick Blackman Office of Boating Safety

Mr. Phil Cappel Office of Boating Safety

Mr. Jeffrey Glossop Potomac Management Group

Mr. Richard Kanehl Office of Boating Safety

Lt. Megan Assistant to Vice Admiral Hull

Mr. Ross Middleton Office of Boating Safety

Mr. Barry Nobles Potomac Management Group

Mr. Carlton Perry Office of Boating Safety

Cdr. Kim Pickens Atlantic Area, Operation Boat Smart

Mr. Bruce Schmidt Office of Boating Safety

Ms. Jeanne Timmons Office of Boating Safety

Mr. Sam Wehr Office of Lifesaving Equipment

Saturday, April 24, 2004

Chairman Muldoon called the Council to order at 1:00 p.m. He asked new members to introduce themselves and their organizations.

Ed Carter, the Boating Law Administrator (BLA) from Tennessee, representing the National Association of Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and the National Safe Boating Council.

Randy Edwards, the Vice President of NASBLA and the BLA from Iowa.

Monita Fontaine, from the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA).

Barbara Sands, from Alaska and with the Coast Guard Auxiliary, Commodore from the Pacific Area.

Ruth Wood, the President of the BoatU.S. Foundation. She also serves on the National Safe Boating Council, as well as Underwriter Laboratories (UL).

Chairman Muldoon thanked the Council members for attending and introduced Charlie Sledd, stating that Mr. Sledd is the BLA from Virginia, where he began in fisheries as a biologist out of graduate school. He worked in the Information and Education Section and in 1997 became the Program Development Director. Mr. Sledd became the BLA for the State of Virginia in January 2000. In NASBLA, he chairs the Education Committee, and also serves as the President of the Southern States Boating Law Administrators Association (SSBLAA). He asked the Council to join him in welcoming Charlie Sledd to the Council.

Charlie Sledd thanked the Chairman and Council for the warm welcome. He said it was a delight and honor to welcome the Council to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He said he enjoys opportunities like this because it puts him into an environment with blue uniforms (Coast Guard). A few years ago, he retired from the Coast Guard Reserve after a thirty-year career. He still has his blue uniform in the closet and said that it will always be there. They have a lot of water and recreational boating in Virginia, with 176,000 square miles in lakes and ponds, 25,000 miles of streams and rivers, and 2,300 miles of trout waters. Virginia has over a quarter million registered boats. With these registered boats, and tens of thousands of non-registered boats, they have a lot of activity on the water. He urged them to take advantage of Virginia’s Southern hospitality, and he hoped they had a great time while in Virginia.

Chairman Muldoon said that on behalf of the whole Council, they appreciated the hospitality Virginia has shown them. He then asked members of the audience to identify themselves and state what their interests are.

Rear Admiral Sally Brice-O’Hara, Commander of the 5^th Coast Guard District. Boating safety is one of her concerns, and she said that anything the Council could do to make boating safer, the Coast Guard would welcome all ideas.

Carolyn Belmore, Commodore in the Coast Guard Auxiliary (former NBSAC member).

Ted Sull McClean (?), from the Coast Guard.

Dick Snyder, an engineer for Mercury Marine, who is active in the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) and NASBLA.

Nita Boles, from Parents for Personal Watercraft (PWC) Safety.

Phyllis Kopytko, from Stop Propeller Injuries Now (SPIN).

Keith Jackson

Rick James

Mark Suttie, from Lake Powell Resorts and Marinas.

Bruce Rowe, a manufacturer of houseboats.

Ron Sarver, from NASBLA.

Chairman Muldoon said that his next task was something he would enjoy. The next presenter is the leading champion of boating safety in the USCG. He assumed command of the Coast Guard Atlantic Area in 2002. He is in charge of all activities spanning five districts, 14 million square miles of coastline, 30,000 Auxiliarists, and the Maritime Defense Zone of the Atlantic. He participated in Vietnam, serving several floating tours and was involved in numerous vital missions. In 1997, he became the Director of Operations Policy at Coast Guard Headquarters. As sponsor of NBSAC, he helped Chairman Muldoon learn his job as Chairman. In 1999, he was assigned as the Commander of the 9^th Coast Guard District, and was then promoted to his current position. He asked the Council and audience to welcome Vice Admiral Hull.

Vice Admiral Hull said it was a pleasure for him to attend this meeting and assured them that he has never lost the zeal that he had in Operations Policy, where Boating Safety is situated. It was a pleasure to be there, and he wouldn’t have missed it for anything. The cornerstones of the Coast Guard today are different than when the Council started. Safety and security don’t mean now what they did then. When doing their safety mission, they make things more secure as well. We are more secure today partially because observant recreational boaters tell the Coast Guard about suspicious activity. He said that boaters could go on the water and enjoy themselves, and they can protect themselves. Making things safe and secure is what it’s about. Originally, when he came to the Council, they asked about mandatory education; and many require it now. Mandatory life jacket wear was discussed; and inflatable life jackets were not going anywhere, but they have them now. He was in Hillsborough, Florida watching a small vessel struggle to keep off the sand; he stressed that these were the type of boaters the Council had to reach. He keeps a pager with him; every time someone dies on the east coast on a maritime accident, his pager goes off. It is a constant reminder that there are roughly 700 deaths every year, many on the east coast; and it reminds him what the Council is all about. Today, security takes up the majority of his time, but they just had a person die in Niagara and another just days later in Louisiana. He asked whether they should put their dollars into security or into saving lives, and stressed that they need to balance it out. The partnerships they have are strong, but need to be stronger. He encouraged people like Rear Admiral Brice-O’Hara to continue her work. With that, he thanked them for being there and looked forward to sharing stories with them. He asked Mr. Ed Carter, Randy Edwards, Monita Fontaine, Ruth Wood, and Commodore Barbara Sands to come forward. He asked them to repeat the oath of Council membership (new members sworn in).

Chairman Muldoon said they would change the order and call for a ten-minute break for photographs with the Vice Admiral. Break

Chairman Muldoon called the Council back to order at 1:40 p.m. He announced that they would have a reception that evening and thanked Vice Admiral and Mrs. Hull for making their home available. He said that the audience is also invited.

Vice Admiral Hull thanked them and hoped they would have a productive meeting.

Chairman Muldoon thanked Larry Innis and others for hosting the event, which started at 6:30 p.m. Next, he said that Captain Evans would present the National Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Program Report.

Captain Evans said it was good to see all the Council members back to work on some vital issues. Many of them just got back from the International Boating and Water Safety Summit. He said it was one of the most incredible opportunities, with over 500 people working on boating safety issues. He said it was about all of them working together, putting pieces of the puzzle together to find out solutions on how to save lives. When they (NBSAC) were meeting in Chicago, someone mentioned that Vice Admiral Hull was retiring, and everyone wanted to come to Norfolk and be in the presence of Vice Admiral Hull once again. The Council is so fond of his ability to bring people together, and now they have Operation Boat Smart, which started from his idea of getting everyone working together to solve these problems in boating safety. That’s why they’re in Norfolk, to say thank you to Vice Admiral Hull. He said that he also had the privilege of being with Rear Admiral Brice-O’Hara in New York City and witnessed her enthusiasm for boating safety.

He then wanted to address the new members. The Advisory Council is such a unique experience. It is a chance to get the industry, States, and public together to discuss issues. Usually, they have to go to organizations separately, but now they’re together in one room to work on the main issues.

He said that he was going to go through some reports, and then would ask the Council for their help. The Office of Boating Safety is seeking guidance on where to go on these select issues. Captain Evans stated that he surrounds himself with smart people, and the Council is the pinnacle of the smart people he surrounds himself with. He said they changed the format of the meeting and he was going to give the charges now so the Subcommittees can work on the issues the Coast Guard was seeking assistance with. Carl Perry will make a presentation about how the Federal regulation process works. When he does this, they need to think about the timelines and how the Office gets through this process. The National Recreational Boating Survey was just published, and NBSAC would be the first to see it. They would be discussing the results. They are also going to give an update on the Harbor Safety and Security Committee, where he and Jim Muldoon took part in the process in Florida. Commercial and recreational boating were two separate entities, but they were working to get recreational boating involved in port safety and security. They were asked to be part of the convention and to get involved, and they would discuss the commercial view of recreational boats and the recreational boaters’ view of commercial vessels.

The Vice Admiral said that he had a pager that went off when they had a fatality. Similar to that, in the Office of Boating Safety, a few years ago, they assigned a staff member to search for boating news. The staffer places the articles in a report that he gets daily. When he gets a report and sees the fatalities on a national level, it makes him cringe at the many pages of boating accidents and fatalities. He cuts and pastes PFD issues into a separate report; and when you look at the issue on a national level, he found that they have a serious issue that they need to continue to address. Carbon Monoxide is a problem they have been dealing with, and they had a workshop to discuss those issues. They have discovered new technology and new ideas on how to attack this problem at the last NBSAC meeting. The Council requested a similar workshop on personal flotation device (PFD) wear. Of 750 fatalities (2002 statistics), 442 drowned without PFDs on. If they could get people to wear the equipment, they could potentially cut the fatality rates in half. They have addressed this concern with many approaches, but after a six-year study, have found that it is not making a big difference. They have similar workshops dealing with propeller injury avoidance measures, where they can discuss new technologies.

The Captain then said that he would cover resolutions that were passed last year. The thanks and appreciation letter for Bill Selden was presented to the family during the memorial service. For the resolution directing the Office to work with NASBLA and NTSB to develop education programs and campaign States to enact laws, he stated that this action is continuing. It was presented to NASBLA for their consideration, and the Council would discuss it in the Prevention Through People Subcommittee meeting. Regarding the next resolution on the National Park Service (NPS) plans, he was honored to say that Ms. Kym Hall of the NPS would be joining them on Sunday. Thanks to Monita and NASBLA for arranging the meeting with her and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss the issue. Their staff is now working with Coast Guard staff to develop regulations. The next resolution was in regard to organizing a PFD workshop. This workshop was held at the Miami boat show. The next resolution asked that TSAC/NAVSAC/NBSAC/NASBLA/NMMA develop a brochure or other media concerning the interaction of recreational boats with commercial vessels. That action is continuing, and they have a sample video from San Francisco. This was presented to NASBLA for their consideration. On the United Nations (U.N.) Resolution No. 40 issue, the State Department has not forwarded this Resolution to the Coast Guard. In addition, the Coast Guard does not have the authority to establish a national educational requirement for recreational vessel operators. It is currently up to the States to enact related laws, so the Office is looking to the Council to provide direction on this issue. On the next resolution, regarding a “Super Drunk” Law by AAA, the Captain said Jeff Hoedt will cover this.

Jeff Hoedt passed out some handouts. They did research on the Super Drunk program concept and found that AAA does not have such a program. They have other programs related to MADD and NHTSA. They also have a wealth of reports from the Traffic Safety Foundation. They have defined a “high-risk driver,” which is a repeat convicted offender, high blood alcohol content offender, and a driver who operates while on a suspended license. Certain States are implementing laws to deal with these drivers. The website listed on the handout can be used to find out legislation State by State.

Larry Innis asked how many states have passed laws.

Jeff Hoedt said he doesn’t have a count, but they can find it on the site.

Larry Innis asked if they could use it for boats.

Jeff Hoedt responded, not that he knew of.

Ray Tsuneyoshi said that California tried to introduce legislation on this last year, but it was rejected.

Jeff Hoedt asked if there were any other questions.

Captain Evans said he inadvertently skipped a resolution dealing with prop strikes. He said that it was passed onto NASBLA for consideration, and they will discuss that more during the Prevention Through People (PTP) Subcommittee meeting. Resolution 09, asking NASBLA to create a model act for a wear requirement for kill switches, would be discussed during the Boats and Associated Equipment (BAE) Subcommittee meeting. They take these resolutions very seriously and act on what the Council advises them on. This is their to-do list in the Office of Boating Safety.

He then got into challenges, which were a few of the items on Subcommittee agendas. The PFD wear rate, after all the work over the last few years, is not increasing. The goal of the program is to save lives, and lives can be saved by getting people to wear PFDs. He will brief them on their possible strategies, one of which is mandatory PFD wear. He wanted the Council to give the Office an objective; at what point do they reach success, lives saved, increased PFD wear? PWC riders have a high PFD wear rate, as well as kayakers. Their second challenge involves proof of proficiency. United Nations (U.N.) Resolution No. 40 says that there is no reciprocity for Americans to boat in Europe and vice versa. Americans go to Europe and their boating education card, if they have one, isn’t accepted. The U.N. wants a uniform proof of proficiency. The Coast Guard does not have the statutory authority to mandate a proof of proficiency requirement. Instead, they work with the States and strongly encourage the States to seek uniformity in educational requirements. Is it time for the Federal government to seek a change in their statutory authority to seek this ability? The next topic is the 17-digit Hull Identification Number (HIN). The Coast Guard doesn’t mind revising the HIN, but there are two different proposed formats, one NASBLA wants, and another that others would like to see.

He said that the Council needed to prioritize resolutions, and Carl Perry will make a presentation to show them how the process works. The Coast Guard has more projects to work on than their resources can handle, so there is a need to identify and work on the highest priority projects first. He wanted the Council to help them design the process for prioritizing these projects. When the three Subcommittees get together, they want recommendations, numbered by priority. There are 30 past resolutions, and the Office would like the Council’s recommendations on where they need to emphasize their time. He thanked them and welcomed the new members to the team.

Chairman Muldoon asked if there were any questions for the Captain. He said that he wanted to see the Subcommittee Chairs, and at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow they will hold a housekeeping session to deal with administrative issues. He asked guests and members to sign in by the back door so they knew who was present. He asked additional members of the audience to identify themselves.

Kim (?), with SPIN.

COMO Warren McAdams, from the USCG Auxiliary.

Karen Steely, from the Aaron Foundation.

Joanne Dorval, assistant to the Chairman.

Chairman Muldoon asked Jeff Hoedt for his Executive Director’s report.

Jeff Hoedt welcomed them to Norfolk and said that they were here during the Azalea Festival and Parade, which is a NATO-sponsored event. He introduced Dionca Williams as the new Administrative Assistant to the Captain, who would also be taking over the development of the Council minutes. He wanted the members to give him their updated contact information. The reception would be this evening, thanks to Vice Admiral Hull, Chairman Muldoon, and the MRAA. He has maps for those who wish to drive separately.

Jeff Hoedt said that for new members, this is their orientation, and he welcomed the five new members. Carl will have a session on the regulatory process and why the Office needs help prioritizing the regulation process. He asked former members to help the new members if they had any questions. He then explained that the folders contained information on presentations and other things they will need for the meeting. The 2004 nonprofit organization grants have been delayed because the Highway Bill has been delayed for several more weeks; the decisions will be made by mid-May. He said they will have two presentations, one from Carl Perry about the regulatory process, and Barry Nobles will explain the Willingness to Pay concept. He asked the Council to note the new format for the resolutions. They will print the new resolutions separately so they don’t have to go through the minutes to find the final resolutions.

Ray Tsuneyoshi asked, how would they know the sequencing for the numbers?

Jeff Hoedt said they appreciate the numbering the Subcommittees use, and they will assign a full Council number to each resolution after the meeting. Another item the members received was a notebook that includes the laws and regulations pertaining to boating safety. These are USCG laws, but other agencies have authority as well. He asked that they bring this with them every meeting; and as amendments occur, they can make changes.

Ted Woolley asked if they could get this on CDROM.

Jeff Hoedt said he would check. They also have the JSI study on the national PFD wear rate. This is an observational survey in at least four sites at each of the 30 selected States. Contractors go out and observe who is and who is not wearing PFDs. He said the report would go on the website as soon as possible. He said that another survey, the National Recreational Boating Survey, was sent to the NBSAC members’ homes and was four volumes in size. They have no more copies to hand out at the meeting, but they have master copies if they need them in Subcommittees. These reports are currently on the website.

Fred Messmann brought a copy of the Executive Summary if they want a copy of that.

Jeff Hoedt said they now have microphones on the members’ tables for this meeting. They also have one in the audience that he asked that they use. He also asked that they state their names when providing comments in order to identify themselves for the minutes. He asked that members sign in every day. Finally, on the status of appointments, they have six members who have completed their Secretarial appointment terms, and since there haven’t been new appointments made yet this year, the Commandant has temporarily continued their appointments. They are expecting the new appointments soon. He asked if there were any questions.

Chairman Muldoon said they would take a 15-minute break. Break.

Chairman Muldoon said they would have a presentation on the regulatory process from Carl Perry. One of the frustrating things new members deal with sometimes is the length of time it takes for resolutions to be acted upon in the form of regulations. This presentation would explain the process and help shape expectations.

Carl Perry thanked the Chairman. He said that they would take a look at the regulatory process: Statutory Authority; Administrative Procedures Act; Marine Safety and Security Council (MSSC); Primary Rulemaking Stages; Regulatory Impact Considerations and Project Completion Schedule.

Congress enacts legislation that may specify regulatory requirements and may even say exactly what these are and enact time limits. The statutory authority may be discretionary or mandatory to promulgate regulations. The regulations issued have the force of law.

The Administrative Procedures Act sets the basic regulatory procedure to publish a general notice of rulemaking; to provide the affected public an opportunity to comment on the rulemaking; to discuss the comments made, any suggested changes made and not made to the proposed rulemaking; and to provide at least 30 days before the rule becomes effective.

As to the Marine Safety and Security Council (MSSC), many years ago, there was a recognized need to have a senior officer in the Coast Guard to look at rulemaking and to set internal procedures. The Council is made up of the Judge Advocate General (Chair) and the Assistant Commandants for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection, and for Operations. It provides oversight and guidance for the rulemaking process and reviews regulatory projects, approving recommended alternatives and a project completion schedule.

He said that the primary rulemaking stages included a Pre-Rulemaking Stage, a Proposed Rulemaking Stage, and a Final Rulemaking Stage. In the Pre-Rulemaking Stage, they develop a policy document providing project information, regulatory impact considerations and a project completion schedule. They used the document, called a work plan, to request Council approval of the project. There is at least one MSSC meeting each year to discuss the status and priority of the existing 70-80 rulemaking projects.

There are a number of Regulatory Impact Considerations that must be addressed in the work plan, the proposed rulemaking and in the final rule. They are: 1) Costs and Benefits. We must address whether the proposed rule is or is not a "significant regulatory action" under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does or does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order, 2) Small Entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we must consider whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 3) Assistance for Small Entities. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we must assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them, 4) Collection of Information. We must address whether the proposed rule calls for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 5) Federalism. We must determine whether or not a rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, whether it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments or would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them, 6) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, 7) Taking of Private Property. We must determine whether a proposed rule would or would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, 8) Civil Justice Reform. We must determine whether a proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden, 9) Protection of Children. We must analyze a proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We must determine whether a proposed rule would or would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children, 10) Indian Tribal Governments. We must determine whether a proposed rule would or would not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 11) Energy Effects. We must analyze a proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We must determine whether or not it is “significant energy action” under that order related to whether or not it is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and 12) Environment. We must analyze a proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f).

The completion schedule includes target dates for key project milestones including: approving the work plan, publishing the NPRM, close of the comment period, schedule for any public meeting, publishing the final rule, the rule’s effective date, and any planned phase-in periods. The Pre-Rulemaking Stage can take 6 to 12 months, and the Rulemaking Stage can take 1 to 3 years for completion.

Proposed Rulemaking Stage. The NPRM provides summary and background information, 60 to 180 days for comment, a contact for further information, and how to submit comments on the proposed regulations. It discusses any prior notice and comment received; the proposed regulations; and regulatory impact considerations. Finally, the NPRM describes the proposed regulations.

Optional Rulemaking Documents. We have optional stages for a rulemaking that include: an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) when we want additional data from the public and those affected by the rule before we propose specific regulations, a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) when we make substantial changes to the NPRM in response to comments received; an Interim Rule (IR) when we need to have the rule be in effect but still want additional comment to consider for refining the permanent rule, a Direct Final Rule (DFR) when we have identified and discussed the concept of the rule and believe that the regulated community would not object, and a Final Rule with no NPRM when we determine that there is no substantive impact on the public and that public comment would not aid in the rulemaking.

Final Rulemaking Stage. The Final Rule provides summary and background information, 30 to 180 days before the rule becomes effective; and a contact for further information. It discusses any prior notice and comment received, any changes to the proposed regulations, and regulatory impact considerations.

He stated that ICF Consulting put together a map describing the regulatory process. He then asked if there were any questions.

Joan Bondareff wondered if they still put Coast Guard regulations on Department of Transportation (DOT) dockets. She also asked whether they were imposing security requirements on Coast Guard regulations.

Carl Perry answered that the clearance goes through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DOT just provides a source to put it in.

Joan Bondareff heard that DHS might only want to enter regulations dealing with security.

Carl Perry said that they move forward with regulations as they receive them, but they are understaffed. The Department works well with it, but not many regulations are moving smoothly through. However, they will soon. The Department does not discern between safety and security, but there are hotter issues that take priority. They’re trying to work together to shape this new system and get it to work. He thanked them.

Chairman Muldoon said that they would hear a presentation about the Willingness to Pay concept by Barry Nobles.

Barry Nobles introduced himself as project manager for the maritime consulting company, Potomac Management Group. He works on-site at Coast Guard Headquarters for the Office of Boating Safety.

He said that over the past few NBSAC meetings, he heard questions from members of NBSAC and the audience about how the Coast Guard conducts cost-benefit analyses. Since he and his team help the Office of Boating Safety with these, he and his clients thought it would be helpful to provide the Council with an overview of how the Coast Guard conducts them, specifically about how they quantify benefits. He said he would define and describe the economic concepts of ‘societal costs’ and ‘Willingness to Pay,’ explain which tool the Coast Guard uses and why, and walk the group through a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how Willingness to Pay is applied.

Mr. Nobles defined and described societal costs and Willingness to Pay and gave an example using lifeguards at a swimming pool. Are you willing to pay a higher admission for more lifeguards or a lower admission for fewer?

He explained that some people believe the Coast Guard should use societal costs. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided guidance to each Federal Department to use Willingness to Pay. The Department of Transportation, in turn, has developed a scale that quantifies injuries and fatalities. The Coast Guard uses this scale in its regulations to quantify benefits.

DOT has determined that the public is willing to pay 3 million dollars, to prevent a fatality. We would pay $2.3 million to prevent a critical injury and so on. Some people perceive this to mean that the Government is dictating what our family members’ lives are worth. However, Willingness to Pay is not the value of a human life. It is simply a tool to quantify what we are willing to pay to minimize the risk of a fatality.

To determine this figure, DOT conducted a meta-analysis and asked each of its’ agencies to report to them the amount of money they believed their constituents would be willing to pay to prevent a theoretical fatality or accident. These agencies gathered relevant studies, surveyed some of their constituents, and shared their professional opinions. They gave their feedback to DOT. DOT analyzed the data and released the scale Mr. Nobles showed on the screen. This scale establishes DOT’s Willingness to Pay for all 13 agencies under the Department, including the Coast Guard. While the Coast Guard is now under DHS, DHS has not yet assigned a value to Willingness to Pay; and until they do, we will continue to use guidance from the Department of Transportation.

Mr. Nobles then gave the Council a theoretical and simplified example of how Willingness to Pay is applied to a cost-benefit-analysis. He explained that they look for particular populations who are at risk, and they consider various interventions that might minimize that risk. Whether a population is small or large does not matter. The only thing that matters is whether we can reduce risk, cost-beneficially. He stated that as both technology and our creativity improve, and prices of interventions drop, in addition to education, we may be able to find new means of reducing risk in a cost-beneficial manner. The Coast Guard must only propose regulations in which the benefits outweigh the costs.

He summarized and reminded the audience that this was an extremely oversimplified explanation of a cost-benefit analysis. His hope is that the Council and audience have a better overall understanding of the process and know who to ask if they have questions. He expressed hope that the Council will consider the role of economics over the next few days as they discuss various regulatory projects and when they return to their States and workplaces. He invited them to contact the Office of Boating Safety if they have questions about this or anything else. He thanked them and asked for questions.

Phyllis Kopytko said her concern was that injuries were not covered in Willingness to Pay as they were with societal costs.

Barry Nobles said that injuries were counted. They were more difficult to quantify, but they did take injuries into account in their analyses.

Phyllis Kopytko said that according to the scale, the guideline is $562,000 for a severe injury. Over the past decade, the fatality Willingness to Pay figure has grown, and they want to see it rise further. SPIN is also curious as to how DHS will handle their own limits.

Jo Moon asked if this was related to just boating accidents or to all forms of transportation.

Barry Nobles answered that it is a guidance from the DOT, so it pertains to all types of transportation.

Jo Moon asked if there had ever been an effort to determine costs for different types of vessels.

Barry Nobles said that the DOT gathered all constituents when determining this number.

Fred Messmann asked if they have used this in any recent analyses that they could look at.

Barry Nobles answered that they used it in the houseboat regulation, where they assumed that all injuries inflicted were severe. He said that it was a difficult science.

Ray Tsuneyoshi asked if there was any flexibility.

Barry Nobles said there is room for flexibility if the cost and benefit are close.

Ed Carter asked if there were simplified definitions for the different injury types.

Barry Nobles said that this is subjective. The DOT has a sentence for each category, but it’s vague, and much of it remains subjective.

Dick Snyder asked if they factored risk from the intervention in their analysis.

Barry Nobles said they take that into consideration. He gave a simplified hypothetical example. A real analysis is much more complicated.

Joan Bondareff said that many Agencies do not use OMB guidance because they have their own specific statutory authority. The Coast Guard is governed by OMB. Recently, the EPA ruled that clean air and water regulations do not need to take costs into consideration.

Barry Nobles answered that all of their rules go to OMB.

Jeff Hoedt wanted to update them on what is occurring in their Office. When Barry’s staff does research, they discover good information. If anyone needs the information, they can sign up for it. The Office realizes that there is value in societal costs. While they can’t use societal costs in regulations, it is beneficial in awareness campaigns and public education. John Malatak is working with a contractor to determine some societal costs related to boating safety. Once they can capture some of that information, they can give it to the Office. He did not know what their expectations will be when the DHS selects its own Willingness to Pay figures. They may be the same numbers used by the DOT, but they did not know. They have offered comments in the process, but the Department has to weigh input from all the different agencies involved in the process. He hoped that from the two presentations, the Council could understand how complicated the regulation process is. He reminded them that they are just one of the many Offices submitting regulations to be considered. This is why they needed the Council’s help in prioritizing past and future regulations.

Phyllis Kopytko asked if there is a listing of what projects are currently in the DHS’ regulatory process.

Carl Perry answered that they have six projects currently in this process. He has an internal list, and they have an approved list for Operations that they update quarterly. The Coast Guard has a long list for their Legal Office to work on, and they are working with DHS to come up with the 22 components as to what they can do and cannot do. Even if they can handle twelve regulations at the same time, the next stop in the process may not be able to. Sometimes the Office will get stalemated because they do not have access to certain data, like population data. He asked them to raise the issue at the Subcommittee meeting.

Fred Messmann asked if there was a chart dealing with societal costs.

Jeff Hoedt answered that there is no chart, since they cannot use societal costs. It cannot help them in the legal process. They will try to capture that information. The information they currently collect has injury information, but not the actual costs of that injury.

Fernando Garcia asked how they factor in exposure rates for certain populations.

Barry Nobles said that exposure is the hardest to find, but they’re looking because it is essential in a cost-benefit-analysis.

Fernando Garcia asked if it would it be a multiplier.

Barry Nobles said his example was simplified. Just because you own a registered boat does not mean that it is on the water.

Jeff Hoedt said that there was exposure data in the most recent survey, and they will get some data from that study. Population and exposure are important, but they had some problems, such as counting canoes and kayaks that are not registered by all States. He said that they were working on that issue though.

Fernando Garcia said that in the future, as in environmental regulations, they can install an internal clock to measure usage of different vessels to determine exposure.

Ray Tsuneyoshi asked if the resolution prioritizing would take place every meeting.

Carl Perry said that it would with all new resolutions.

Ray Tsuneyoshi wondered if they wouldn’t get caught in the process of putting old resolutions further and further out.

Jeff Hoedt said this is a two-step process; first, they need a prioritization tool. They need the Subcommittees to come up with a tool. Highest priorities may change over the years, but they could classify them. He stressed that they would not only target the high issues, but would plug others in to higher prioritized regulatory projects when possible to make sure they were considered.

Carl Perry hoped to publish some rules and get them off the list soon. They will not re-rank new resolutions, but would put them into a priority classification system.

Chairman Muldoon said that both presentations were very valuable. They’ll need to decide as a group how the prioritization will work. He asked for any old business.

Ted Woolley wanted to congratulate the Coast Guard on the broken out resolutions from the previous meeting. He also wanted to express his thanks for following up on old business. He wanted to know the status on the inflatable life jacket, and also wanted to know what the definition of “whitewater” is as it applies to PFD classifications.

Nita Boles asked Captain Evans about the University of Florida study that found that children were more likely to be injured in PWC accidents. Since that time, Bruce Schmidt submitted a study that showed that 38% of PWC casualties were with children aged 19 and under. They feel that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. They felt that children should be a high priority. She suggested that they put a warning on their website and do as much as they can to educate the public about children and the danger with PWCs.

Jeff Hoedt thanked her for making them aware of the Florida study and passed out the information to the Council members.

Chairman Muldoon called for members’ items. He asked new members to abstain from submitting new items until after the experienced members submitted theirs, in order to get an understanding of the process.

Joan Bondareff wanted the Council to participate in developing a long-term strategy to increase PFD wear. It would be a five-step process, first a new campaign to bring in other groups, including an invitation to the sport fishing industry. They would also ask hunting and angling groups to sign a PFD pledge. The result would be that if the measures are not successful, they may need to consider mandatory wear on certain vessels. They needed to simplify and clarify PFD classifications, review and do analysis of the Canadian Safe Boating Council study in the United States and finally set goals and timetables to accomplish this in the United States.

Bob David had no new issues; all five issues will be covered in Subcommittee.

Bill Engfer had three items. The first was mentioned earlier with the two 17-digit HIN formats. He wanted them to identify the difference and wanted to know who is proposing the other format. Secondly, some Coast Guard Districts produce a list of navigable waters by State and those waters that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Often, there is confusion between Districts. The lists are lost and not kept up to date, and the lists of years ago do not correlate with the lists today. He asked if it were possible for the Coast Guard to produce, by State, a list of navigable waters and those waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and keep them in a central location. He also asked whether there was a national directive to the Districts on this topic, or is it at a District’s discretion as to the keeping and updating of these lists.

Fernando Garcia said his first issue was more of a suggestion regarding the two formats for HINs. He said that they should consider the ISO standard, considering the global economy they live in. He also wanted to get an update on their previous recommended alternate exemption method for PWCs, other than the exemption process utilizing SAE procedures.

Larry Innis had no new business. He still had a concern about education requirement reciprocity between States; and while it continues to be addressed at NASBLA, he would like it to be addressed in front of the Council as well.

Jim Manues said most of his items would be addressed in Subcommittees. He thanked the staff for the technical data about PFD wear. He said after studying it, that the low rates of PFD wear are a concern.

Ted Woolley had two items. His first dealt with a 65 mph top end speed for PWCs. This year, he was approached by a manufacturer who asked if anything was going to be done about exceeding the 65 mph maximum capability limit. He wanted to know if the Coast Guard was going to take any action against manufacturers who breach the 65 mph limit. He did not want to see the doors open to PWC manufacturers racing to increase their capable speeds again. Secondly, he did a word search in titles 33 CFR and 46 CFR and found that in the commercial side they have regulations limiting allowable noise emitted by the vessels and that the workers can be exposed to. He asked, if they deal with noise on the commercial side, why can they not regulate it on the recreational side?

Ray Tsuneyoshi said that a hot item in his State is Carbon Monoxide (CO). They have a bill under consideration, and all of the BLAs have received an email from the wake boarders and wake surfers asking them to not legislate them out of existence until they prove that it is unsafe. He saw the NASBLA model law for a 20’ zone behind a vessel, he checked accident statistics in his own State, and they had no instances of wake boarders or wake surfers succumbing to CO poisoning. The letter raised more questions than answers.

He didn’t know if there is enough science to indicate whether CO risks exist all the time, or whether the cumulative effect increases risk. He was also interested in discussing the PFD issue. He added that the instances of BUI and related injuries are rising, and other States have been seeing the same phenomenon. They have done many advertisements, and it continues to rise. He asked if the Coast Guard had any recommendations on how to get through to these people. He also added that when fast boats are at full throttle, the sound increases exponentially. He wondered if they need a measure for throttling and if there was a safe way to do it.

Scott Swanby wanted to look at the copies of the PFD report.

Eric Shepard complimented the Office on getting the papers distributed quickly. He had two items of concern. First, he wanted an update on the factory visit contract and where it stands, knowing that the Highway Bill has not been passed. His second item was a concern about a follow on to the original fire port resolution by ABYC.

Jo Moon wanted to thank the Coast Guard for their materials early, and especially appreciated the meeting minutes, which were clear and easy to understand. Canoes and kayaks were a concern for her. She noted that the industry was not present even as the Admiral stated that there was a kayaker missing. She talked to Bruce Schmidt about the Coast Guard’s inability to capture statistics from kayakers and canoeists in remote areas. Another issue that has come to her attention is that some EPIRBS are not functioning correctly and wanted to know what the Coast Guard was doing about these nonfunctional EPIRBS. Recall of aftermarket safety items was also an issue. There is an ongoing discussion on flare disposals, and she was happy that there would be a presentation. Almost weekly, she finds old PFDs in junk stores for sale for cheap. She wanted to see a campaign directed toward thrift stores to get these dangerous items out of the stores. Finally, she thanked the Coast Guard for taking member items from the last meeting and inserting them into these Subcommittee meetings.

Fred Messmann thanked them for the regulation manual. He also wanted to thank the Office for breaking the resolutions out and thanked them for sending the resolutions to NASBLA and getting them to their committees so they could work on them. He asked if they have a standard distribution list for rulemaking. Often, NASBLA pays staff to go read the Federal Register, and he wanted to know if there is a way they could get on a list so that those rulemakings and notices etc. could come to those people who signed up for them. In conjunction with that, he wanted to see the same thing done with grants, including the SRG grant product that he received. At the Summit, there were people asking questions, and he was fortunate to have it and talk about it somewhat. He asked if all BLAs were going to get a copy of it. When a grant report is finalized, he wanted availability and distribution available for NASBLA members.

Carl Perry asked whether he was referring to NBSAC or NASBLA

Fred Messmann answered both. The Office does well at distributing information to NBSAC members, but he wasn’t sure others in NASBLA received the same information that he does. He asked if a member of the public can sign up to receive these updates.

Ed Carter asked if the Coast Guard captures and studies commercial rafting accidents. Although they are not reportable, he felt that they could contain valuable information. He was also concerned with a change in the Clean Water Act that prevents States from enforcing it.

Randy Edwards said his concerns were about commercial boat operator licenses. He was also concerned about the list of navigable waters, as they have had multiple lists.

He said that the Coast Guard wanted licenses for commercial fisher guides, etc.

Monita Fontaine had no issues.

Ruth Wood said that they recently sent a letter to Admiral Collins about the use of type II PFDs. Since they are the cheapest, people carry them, but they don’t wear them. They’ve come a long way with inflatables, but they are too expensive. Type II PFDs perpetuate the low wearage rate of those jackets. She asked if they could they get together and talk about the issue of Type II lifejackets. She wanted the Coast Guard to discuss this issue in the future.

COMO Barbara Sands said that the important issues to her were on the table. PFD wear is important in Alaska, as 75% of boaters don’t like them. Paddlers and canoeists also have her interest because of what she read in preparation, and she saw that it is a hot topic nationwide.

Chairman Muldoon introduced Bill Engfer to give his Towing Safety Advisory Council (TSAC)/NBSAC workgroup report.

Bill Engfer could not attend the TSAC meeting in Washington, D.C. due to another meeting. To the credit of TSAC, they had a tremendous amount of communication prior to and after the TSAC meeting. He turned PSA material over to Cathy Hammond, who took it to the TSAC meeting and shared it with them. After review, TSAC came up with a San Francisco tape they wanted to look at, as well as a Chesapeake Bay video. They discussed the future direction they were going. Cathy felt that TSAC was going to review their information and narrow it down, which would then be forwarded to Charlie Sledd, NASBLA Education Committee Chair. He will narrow it down further and then forward that information to his BLAs as a supplement. That will be finalized in NASBLA by September. They are also working with barge lighting. The Coast Guard did publish a request for grant applicants to study the issue.

Jeff Hoedt said that he attended the TSAC meeting, and we (NBSAC) have great support from Cathy Hammond. The Office solicited for potential applicants to come up with a methodology to enhance visibility of vessels, but they received no applications. They’re working to determine the next strategy.

Bill Engfer said that they did not want to wait for another grant cycle. TSAC’s recommendation was that the Coast Guard should seek other funding sources to study the issue. TSAC is also addressing travel time for towing vessels and distances. This poses a safety concern for the towing vessels, as well as recreational vessels around them. The commercial industry supported an educational initiative for recreational vessel operators. This cooperative effort between NBSAC and TSAC is essential in moving forward, and he agreed that Cathy Hammond provides great support.

Chairman Muldoon thanked him for his report.

Chairman Muldoon recessed at 4:50 p.m.

Monday, April 26, 2004

Chairman Muldoon called the Council back to order at 1:31 p.m. He thanked Rear Admiral Brice-O’Hara for her presence. He introduced Captain Evans for the Wallop Breaux update.

Captain Evans passed out a handout explaining the technical aspects of the status of the Wallop Breaux reauthorization. The authorization expired September 30, 2003, and the program was then continued through an initial extension through the end of February 2004. The second extension brings us through the end of the week. There is a concern over the RBS Program being excluded from the next extension proposal. Some NBSAC members have been following this closely and may be able to give them an update. He asked if anyone has heard anything up to date.

Fred Messmann said not as of 9:00 a.m.

Captain Evans said they will have their work cut out for them with another short-term extension to get them through. How does it affect the recreational boating program? They currently only had 7/12ths of their old money to fund future programs and initiatives. They currently did not have the money to distribute to all the nonprofit organizations as they would like. He then turned the presentation over to Chairman Muldoon.

Chairman Muldoon hoped everyone understood how important the situation was. If this extension effort fails, it would be the end of boating safety as they know it. He urged the Council to get involved if they knew anyone in the process.

Eric Shepard asked if they could be updated by email.

Chairman Muldoon said yes.

Monita Fontaine met Wednesday with John Rayfield of the Coast Guard Subcommittee staff, and the ALAB proposal would be reintroduced into Congress. She thinks that people were overwhelmed with the materials in the anarchy of trying to get the bill passed. They were trying to

National Boating Safety Advisory Council

Marriott Hotel

Council Members Present

Mr. Ted Woolley

None

Saturday, April 24, 2004

Monday, April 26, 2004