
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7757-7758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 Jeffrey.A.Ludwig@uscg.mil. 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


