[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7757-7758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 181
[Docket No. USCG-2007-29236]
Hull Identification Numbers for Recreational Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Follow-up to request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its decision to not initiate a
rulemaking addressing an expanded hull identification number (HIN). The
Coast Guard's decision-making process included consideration of
comments submitted in response to its request for comments on the costs
and benefits of expanding the existing 12-character HIN in order to
provide additional information identifying vessels.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting ``USCG-2007-29236'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or e-mail Mr. Jeffrey Ludwig, Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1061, e-mail [email protected]. If you have questions on
viewing material in the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 17, 2008, we published a request
for public comments on the costs and benefits of expanding the existing
12-character HIN in order to provide additional information identifying
vessels (73 FR 14193). The notice specifically requested comments on:
(1) The expected benefits and costs of an expanded HIN; (2) the manner
in which the Coast Guard should exempt small entities and builders of
high-volume, low-cost vessels; (3) the estimated collection of
information burdens to vessel manufacturers if the current 12-character
HIN regulations were revised to require additional characters; and (4)
possible alternatives to an expanded HIN. The Coast Guard also sought
specific data to support its decision-making process about whether to
initiate a rulemaking addressing an expanded HIN.
In response to the request for comments, we received 29 comments.
The Coast Guard has decided not to initiate a rulemaking addressing an
expanded HIN based on consideration of the comments received as well as
the challenges from data uncertainty in describing, estimating, and
quantifying potential costs and benefits of such a rulemaking.
Background
The Coast Guard has been looking into the possibility of an
expanded HIN for several years. In 1994, the Coast Guard initiated a
rulemaking to create
[[Page 7758]]
an expanded HIN, but ultimately withdrew the rulemaking, stating:
``There is no consensus on format for an expanded HIN and the Coast
Guard lacks sufficient data to demonstrate that the benefits clearly
outweigh the costs and burdens'' 65 FR 40069 (June 29, 2000,
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; termination); see also 59
FR 23651 (May 6, 1994, Notice of proposed rulemaking); 59 FR 55823
(November 9, 1994, Notice of workshop and reopening of comment period);
62 FR 7971 (February 21, 1997, Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking); 63 FR 63638 (November 16, 1998, Request for comments).
The Coast Guard again looked into the possibility of an expanded
HIN with publication of the 2008 request for comments.
Discussion of Comments
The comments received covered a range of support and opposition to
the Coast Guard's proposal for an expanded HIN. Several commenters
addressed the Coast Guard's request for specific comments and data,
although there was no consensus among commenters and the data and
information provided was in an aggregate form with estimates which
varied widely. For example, one commenter stated that certain
recreational vessel manufacturers already use an expanded HIN format
for their products (which include recreational vehicles as well as
vessels), while several other commenters indicated by the substance of
their comments that many recreational vessel manufacturers do not.
Additionally, some commenters stated that the costs of an expanded HIN
would be minimal and described why, while other commenters provided
cost estimates to show that costs would be excessive. The Coast Guard
found these comments helpful in showing a variety of opinions and
possible data regarding the proposal to expand the HIN. These comments,
however, also indicate that currently there are no definitive means to
address this issue.
Although some commenters provided certain requested data, the
request for comments did not garner any quantitative data or specific
information regarding the benefits of an expanded HIN. Some commenters
specifically agreed with the Coast Guard's discussion of possible
benefits from an expanded HIN, such as enhanced assistance in the
recovery of stolen vessels, reduced recreational vessel fraud, improved
accuracy of accident data analysis, and increased remote identification
of a ``suspect'' vessel. None of the commenters provided any benefit-
specific data or information to support the commenters' expressed
views. Challenges to an expanded HIN proposal and its potential
benefits were also general statements--opposing the proposal or
disagreeing with the Coast Guard's discussion of the proposal--and did
not contain sufficiently specific data or information.
In addition to seeking information from the public on an expanded
HIN proposal, the Coast Guard also performed its own evaluation of the
potential costs and benefits of such a proposal. The Coast Guard found
a lack of available data regarding potential costs and benefits.
Conclusion
At this time, the Coast Guard has decided that it is in the best
interest of the public and the boating safety community to focus its
attention and devote its resources to other regulatory actions. If the
Coast Guard decides in the future to reconsider an expanded HIN, we
will provide notice in a new Federal Register publication.
Dated: February 2, 2011.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-3037 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P