Question regarding ABYC H-29 in USA

[Ike]

I'd like the USCG to avoid ruining things by outlawing the boats that are the most fun.

Not likely. The Coast Guard's only concern (it's in the law) is safety. When something comes along that we had a concern about, we tried not to regulate it unless there was some significant safety issue. For instance in the 80's, before the advent of jet power personal watercraft, (Jet Ski, waverunner, etc) there were Thrill Craft. The mini cougar cat, addictor, exhilerator, etc, There were half a dozen companies making them including Mercury Marine. They were all about 13 feet or less, powered by a small outboard. So after much talking with the industry, ABYC, NMMA, and a lot of other people we wrote a regulation to apply specifically to those boats. 13 feet or less, 2 persons (or 1), a steering wheel, and they had to run a test course to determine safe HP with a max at 40HP. It's still in the regulations. However the Personal Water Craft industry came along and drove them out of business. They were more fun, had a safer jet drive (no prop), and were faster. When the PWCs began to approach speeds of 60 or more, we got the industry to voluntarily agree to a speed limit of 65. As far as I know that still holds. And of course it doesn't apply to bonafide racing boats. None of the regulations apply to boats used exclusively for racing. So I doubt very much that would happen. Frankly I do not know what prompted the Coast Guard to actually publish a policy paper on canoes and kayaks. For years we deliberately did not do that. But someone must have had a concern.

There is a US Code (I don't recall the number) which requires Federal Regulatory agencies considering a regulation to adopt an industry standard if one exists rather than writing their own. That's where most of the regulations for recreational boats came from. Directly adopted from ABYC, SAE, UL and NFPA standards with tweaks for certain circumstances. That includes the definition of what is or isn't a canoe or Kayak. The boating industry made that standard.

Most are performance standards. That is, the boat must do so and so, not standards that tell you how to do it. This allows for innovation. It allows people to create new ideas. Just look at the variety in the boating industry. So I am sure there is also room for all the variety in the canoe and kayaks industry. There is also in the regulations a process for what is now called alternative compliance, what we used to call a grant of exemption. If the boat cannot physically comply, but is just as safe or more, then it can be exempted. The finest examples are drift boats and PWCs. Drift boats were exempted for years from the flotation standards, and PWCs were exempted from the fuel and electrical standards. The same could apply to certain types of canoes and kayaks. But then the only Federal regulation they both must comply with is the requirement for a Hull Identification Number. There are no Federal flotation, safe loading, or powering requirements. And you can call it whatever you want short of false advertising.

 

[mitchgrunes]

The same could apply to certain types of canoes and kayaks. But then the only Federal regulation they both must comply with is the requirement for a Hull Identification Number. There are no Federal flotation, safe loading, or powering requirements. And you can call it whatever you want short of false advertising.

Most canoes and kayaks, AFAIK, don't have "Hull Identification Numbers".

Some kayaks had serial #'s somewhere on the inside - which often soon wore off.

Perhaps it would make sense from a theft perspective - but then states or the feds would all charge us a registration tax. And the small scale boat makers would be regulated out of existence.

As far as testing performance - what some person can do with a paddled boat is quite different from what other people can do. That's a lot of the point of paddling - there is substantial skill involved.

As best I understand it, there have been a fair number of "kayaking" accidents, including deaths. Partly because it has become mainstream. A lot of people assume that the apparent stability of the wider consumer market boats will apply to all the conditions that they might use it - including when boating alone. And they don't learn self-rescues or assisted rescues in case it tips. A fair number of hypothermia cases too. I hope you are right, but I can easily imagine a federal regulator deciding something needs to be done.

Why else create such rules, however poorly worded? They must have some motivation.

 

[Ike]

They all have HINs . HINs are required on all recreational boats in the US, Canada, All EU countries, Australia/NewZealand, UK. They are on one of the pointy ends. On rotomolded or fiberglass they are molded into the hull. I've looked at literally thousands over the years and they all had them.

Most states do not register Canoes and Kayaks. Last time I checked, which was a long time a go, only five states required registration of canoes and kayaks, unless they are powered. Federal law requires all boats with mechanical propulsion to be registered. Canoes and Kayaks are mostly human powered, and there is no requirement to register Human powered boats. But don't say it too loud, someone will hear you and think it's a good source of revenue. The feds don't register recreational Boats (except big ones over 5 net tons). The states do. It may be different in other countries.

I can easily imagine a federal regulator deciding something needs to be done.

It doesn't work that way. It takes years to promulgate a regulation. There first has to be a justification for it. The Statute says (and this isn't all of it, just the most relevant part)

(c)In prescribing regulations under this section, the Secretary shall, among other things—
(1)
consider the need for and the extent to which the regulations will contribute to recreational vessel safety;
(2)
consider relevant available recreational vessel safety standards, statistics, and data, including public and private research, development, testing, and evaluation;

Since there are very few relevant standards, except for the ABYC definition, and the ABYC standard for powering canoes, there isn't much to go on.

The definition of a canoe is not a safety standard. Even if it were, it's a long process: And after doing the above they have to publish a notice in the Federal Register saying they are considering, etc......, and there is a long comment period when the public can comment. That can be in writing, or if enough interest is generated, then public hearings are held around the country. Then an advanced proposed notice of rule making, another comment period, If it gets beyond that, which most never get beyond, a notice of proposed rulemaking and another long comment period, ( and the attorneys get a crack at the wording) and then if it gets beyond that the final rule is published. Most never get to even an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. Back in the late 80's I held public hearings on a proposal to require prop guards. There was so much opposition to it it died before it ever got to writing a rule. And it wasn't the Coast Guard's idea in the first place. It was consumer advocates that wanted it. I can site various proposals that never made it to the rule making process, because they weren't needed. Kill switches went the same way until some Congressman inserted it in a Coast Guard Budget Authorization Bill. The people at HQ were blind sided on that one. That made it a Statute rather than a regulation.

Congress makes Statutes, but unlike what the public thinks, some government bureaucrat cannot just make a regulation. There are statutes that cover making regulations and they have to be followed or the government can be sued. (see what the Supremes had to say about the EPA)

I agree the definition needs refining, and that can be done by ABYC if there is enough interest. But that is not the government, It's an industry association. If the industry wants it ABYC probably will do it. If the industry doesn't want it they won't.

PS: I am not a spokesperson for the Coast Guard, but 34 years of Coast Guard service as an officer and later as a civilian employee gives me a pretty good idea of how things work. Current Coast Guard personnel opinions may vary.

 

[mitchgrunes]

So the major safety concern here has to do with putting motors on them?

People have certainly mounted (electric) motors on sea kayaks and rec boats. Some are even designed to be able to take them - often they don't mount at an end or on the side, but in the middle, through a hole (sometimes a coverable hole - otherwise there has to be a lot of internal flotation).

Not all "kayaks" have pointy ends - most whitewater playboats and open water surf boats don't. They typically have horizontally rounded ends, though the back may be flat across. e.g., see
Whitewater Jackson Kayaks - Jackson Adventures https://jacksonkayak.com/whitewater/jackson-kayaks
Of course the ends of those boats are usually vertically thin. But they are not designed to mount motors. They are basically designed to somersault and cartwheel, so the weight of a typical outboard would typically make them stand up vertical.

Some "kayaks" are basically surfboards, with an indented place to sit in. E.g., surf skis and some "sit-on-top kayaks". Would you call the top surface a "covered deck", because there must be flotation hidden inside? Some of us find it odd that these boats are called "kayaks", but that is the way some of them are advertised. But they aren't canoes either by most old-time paddler definitions, because there are no elevated sides.

If there are hull numbers on the ends or sides of whitewater boats, you mostly couldn't find them after the first few days of use in rocky streams - they get banged up and scraped too much.

And I'm fairly certain that most people who make homemade kayaks and canoes for their own use don't put hull numbers on them, possibly unless they buy a commercial kit. Hull numbers aren't even mentioned in the online or book boatbuilding directions I've seen.

Note that many states do not even have a way to register kayaks and canoes, and some other small boat categories, unless you put a motor on them - e.g., last I checked, my state, Maryland. So how would you get an HIN on a homemade kayak or canoe?

 

[gonzo]

I sent you that information. Just fill in the form.

 

[Ike]

Kit boat manufacturers such as Chesapeake Lightcraft, and Glen-L are required to assign HINs to their kits. Whether the builder puts it on is questionable. If it's a homebuilt, or a boat made before 1972 (when the regulation went into affect) an HIN can be obtained from the state office that registers boats. You can still get one even if the boat is not required to be registered. Each state has a form. You fill it out and attest to the fact you built it (be prepared to show receipts for materials. Take pics of the build with you) You will have to pay sales tax on the materials in some states if you haven't already paid sales tax on them. Anyway, the Federal Regs authorize the states to do that, in fact it is mandatory. I did it with my vintage Sea Ray in Washington State and it was simple. Like Gonzo said, just fill out the form. The state will give instructions on where the HIN is to be applied.

If you have problems, every state has a Boating Law administrator. You can call or e-mail them. In Maryland Maryland - NASBLA https://www.nasbla.org/nasblamain/about-nasbla/boating-contacts/maryland

Titling & Registration
Margie MacCubbin, Acting Director
DNR Licensing & Registration Service
501 W. MacPhail Road
Bel Air, MD 21014
410.836-4561

 

[DCockey]

The use of the ABYC H-29 definition by the USCG is not new, and dates back to at least 2003. It is contained in the USCG "Boatbuilder's Handbook, Revised November 2003".

Page images:

 

[Ike]

Actually it's been used for decades. We were using this definition when I first got into the Boating Safety program in 1976. But it wasn't formalized until recently with a policy paper.

 

[DCockey]

ABYC H-29 was first published by ABYC in 1978. They may have adopted it from what the USCG was using at that time.

The use of the definition by the USCG my have been previously formalized in the 1970's when the small craft capacity and floatation requirements were adopted, but the record of that formalization has gone missing. So putting out a new policy letter would clear up any recent claims that it was not official USCG policy.