Inland Waterway Rule changes - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree22Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 4 Days Ago
davidpm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Madison
Posts: 3,644
Thanks: 160
Thanked 36 Times in 29 Posts
Rep Power: 7
davidpm is on a distinguished road
Inland Waterway Rule changes

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014...2014-14413.pdf

I haven't read it yet to see if their is anything that applies to recreational sailors. If you find something of interest please let us know.
__________________
The lesson from the Icarus story is not about human failing.
It is a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.
If you have an engineering problem solve it.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old 4 Days Ago
MarkofSeaLife's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,975
Thanks: 25
Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts
Rep Power: 4
MarkofSeaLife is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

I dont think its for real.... I mean it looks like its written by a comedian as satire on how governments 'run'. Is it Steven Colbert???


Quote:
IMO uses the term ‘‘Part’’ to describe a section but because of CFR formatting, those references would have to become ‘‘Subpart.’’ Additionally, where the IMO referenced a ‘‘Section’’ we were unable to use that term because of the contextual meaning the term ‘‘Section’’ has within the CFR.
Attached Thumbnails
Inland Waterway Rule changes-image.jpg  
__________________
Sea Life
Notes on a Circumnavigation:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old 4 Days Ago
davidpm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Madison
Posts: 3,644
Thanks: 160
Thanked 36 Times in 29 Posts
Rep Power: 7
davidpm is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

I read through quite a bit of it and was pleased to see how much effort was put into making it as good as possible.

As far as the Part and subpart thing goes these rules are official "laws". That means every term has to be as clearly as possible defined since lawyers will be using the language as written and there will be in many cases a lot of money involved. The more clear the law is the less the litigation costs.

Some of the items that were discussed included:

All commercial vehicles and all vessels over 12 meters have to have on board a copy of the rules. (That didn't change, it has been like that)

They removed the requirement for a bell on vessels over 12 meters and less than 20 meters. This conforms with COLREGS.

Sailing vessels and boats with oars of less than 7 meters can use an optional all around white light.

The first few pages explain all the suggestions various entities made during the public review process and the reasoning the CG used to make their decisions.

It appeared to me to be very well done. They obviously take their responsibility very seriously and are attempting to make the US law as close to COLREGS as possible to make education of the public easier.

It is a very hard read but it is educational as to how they think.
__________________
The lesson from the Icarus story is not about human failing.
It is a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.
If you have an engineering problem solve it.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old 4 Days Ago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New Orleans Louisiana
Posts: 1,773
Thanks: 6
Thanked 39 Times in 37 Posts
Rep Power: 3
Stumble is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Looks like a pretty standard FR (federal regulation) update.

The only substantial changes for recreational boaters that I saw on a brief review is to remove the stupid bell requirement for boats less than 20 meters, and adds to option of using an all round white light for boats less than 7 meters.
__________________
Greg Rubin
Attorney
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old 4 Days Ago
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,291
Thanks: 6
Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts
Rep Power: 3
Seaduction is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Typical government "gobbledegook". No wonder no one can interpret the IRS tax code.
Based on this part of the law, it costs nothing to ring a bell if you already own the bell:

§ 83.33(a), Part 86, Subpart B ........ Removes the need for a bell ..... New vessels 12 meters or more
in length, but less than 20
meters in length.
Cost Savings: $299 per vessel,
$2.72 million over 10 years.
Benefits: More lenient requirement.
Conforms with
COLREGS.
§ 83.35(i) ......................................... If the vessel is equipped with a
bell and the bell is used, the
sound must be made at 2-
minute intervals, which is the
same as the existing sounding
requirements.
New vessels 12 meters or more
in length, but less than 20
meters in length.
Cost: $0. Applies to the use of
existing bells. The use of bells
is optional.
Benefits: Reduces risk of collision
if proper sound signal is
used during reduced visibility.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old 4 Days Ago
scratchee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 361
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 3
scratchee is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaduction View Post
Typical government "gobbledegook". No wonder no one can interpret the IRS tax code.
Based on this part of the law, it costs nothing to ring a bell if you already own the bell...
I suppose it's fashionable to criticize anything the government does, but it seems to me that they are considering each proposed change and identifying the cost and benefit of that change. Is this unreasonable? Should they not put it in writing if the cost is found to be zero?
miatapaul, davidpm and Minnesail like this.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old 4 Days Ago
RichH's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,743
Thanks: 9
Thanked 63 Times in 56 Posts
Rep Power: 15
RichH will become famous soon enough
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchee View Post
Is this unreasonable? Should they not put it in writing if the cost is found to be zero?
If there are no functional changes as to how one actually operates in the Inland waterway ... and the cost to 'rewrite the rules' is greater than zero, exactly what is the benefit?
Such appears to be just another 'make work government project' that results in no benefit while consuming great cost. Is this just a typical welfare program to benefit government rule writers and lawyers?
The money expended for these 'vitally important rule changes' could have been applied to dredge out those areas of the waterway which are constantly filling in and making the waterway virtually inoperative to both commercial and recreational traffic in many places, especially in SC and GA.

Typical government (non)efficiency and waste in action. The AICW is virtually useless in areas of South Carolina and Georgia due to the lack of funding for maintenance/dredging, so lets 'rewrite the rules' - is nothing more than a boondoggle, some would beg the question and say corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance!
weinie likes this.

Last edited by RichH; 4 Days Ago at 09:47 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #8  
Old 4 Days Ago
PBzeer's Avatar
Wandering Aimlessly
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cruising
Posts: 19,785
Thanks: 0
Thanked 78 Times in 75 Posts
Rep Power: 14
PBzeer has a spectacular aura about PBzeer has a spectacular aura about PBzeer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

It's certainly a comfort to me to know that my tax dollars are going to someone who determines how much I can save by not having a bell on board.

You either need a piece of equipment on board, or you don't. What difference does it matter how much it costs?
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria

Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love.
JCP


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Website & Blog

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #9  
Old 3 Days Ago
scratchee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 361
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 3
scratchee is on a distinguished road
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBzeer View Post
It's certainly a comfort to me to know that my tax dollars are going to someone who determines how much I can save by not having a bell on board.

You either need a piece of equipment on board, or you don't. What difference does it matter how much it costs?
The purpose is not to determine "how much I can save," it's to determine the impact of the rules on the people who have to obey them. That way, the cost can be balanced against the benefit. I for one appreciate this approach, because without it we would almost certainly be required to carry a bunch of expensive gear like EPIRB, sat phones, and life rafts because they have a theoretical benefit (I say "theoretical" because they can save lives in some situations, but they are of very little benefit in other situations.)
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #10  
Old 3 Days Ago
RichH's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,743
Thanks: 9
Thanked 63 Times in 56 Posts
Rep Power: 15
RichH will become famous soon enough
Re: Inland Waterway Rule changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchee View Post
The purpose is not to determine "how much I can save," it's to determine the impact of the rules on the people who have to obey them. That way, the cost can be balanced against the benefit. I for one appreciate this approach, because without it we would almost certainly be required to carry a bunch of expensive gear like EPIRB, sat phones, and life rafts because they have a theoretical benefit (I say "theoretical" because they can save lives in some situations, but they are of very little benefit in other situations.)
.... such is result of ignoring and/or knowingly avoiding the 'cost of diminishing returns' as imposed by a fiscally out of control government.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
okeechobee waterway fl mackeysmusic General Discussion (sailing related) 8 03-09-2013 04:12 PM
Okeechobee waterway Frogwatch General Discussion (sailing related) 6 08-27-2012 01:01 PM
NJ Inland Waterway jfitzgerald US Northeast 4 04-27-2012 12:23 PM
Hello from inland CA AKsailer1983 Introduce Yourself 2 07-11-2008 02:05 PM
Inland Waterway larry Mathews Cruising & Liveaboard Forum 6 07-05-2001 04:47 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.