Bill Overview
Title: To require the Commandant of the Coast Guard to issue regulations for amphibious passenger vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill sets forth requirements related to amphibious passenger vessels operating in U.S. waters. The U.S. Coast Guard must issue regulations for amphibious passenger vessels, including to require that operators provide reserve buoyancy for the vessels through passive means, such as watertight compartmentalization, built-in flotation, or other means, to ensure that the vessels remain afloat and upright in the event of flooding. The bill also sets forth requirements for amphibious passenger vessels that are not in compliance with the regulations, including a requirement remove the canopies and window coverings of such vessels for waterborne operations, or to install in such vessels canopies that do not restrict either horizontal or vertical escape by passengers in the event of flooding or sinking.
Sponsors: Rep. Carson, Andre [D-IN-7]
Target Audience
Population: People involved or utilizing amphibious passenger vessels
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill requires regulations for amphibious passenger vessels in U.S. waters, directly impacting operators and companies that own such vessels.
- Individuals working in the design and manufacturing of amphibious vehicles will need to adapt to meet the new safety regulations.
- Passengers who use amphibious vehicles for tours or other purposes will be affected by improved safety measures, potentially altering their experience or costing more.
- Tourism companies that offer amphibious vehicle tours will need to comply with the regulations, impacting their operations, costs, and possibly prices.
Reasoning
- The primary group impacted by this policy includes operators and companies owning amphibious passenger vessels, as they will directly have to comply with new regulations.
- The policy budget is relatively modest, suggesting that the focus will be on key areas rather than complete industry overhauls, affecting smaller companies more significantly.
- Passengers and tourists could see increased safety but potentially higher costs for tickets if companies pass on the expenses of compliance.
- People involved in the manufacturing and design of these vehicles might see both challenges and opportunities as they innovate to meet new standards.
- The population distribution is such that those living in coastal or tourist-heavy regions, especially areas known for amphibious tours, will experience the greatest change.
Simulated Interviews
Tour Operator (Branson, Missouri)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The safety measures are welcome, but they increase our operating costs.
- If the ticket prices have to go up, I'm worried about losing some customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Amphibious Vehicle Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new regulations are an interesting challenge, perfect for pushing innovation.
- This could provide our company a chance to lead in safety features.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Coast Guard Regulatory Officer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides a clear directive, enhancing public safety which is critical.
- It will be demanding to ensure compliance across all operators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tourist (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really happy to hear about the increased safety regulations.
- I do worry tickets might become more expensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Navy Veteran and volunteer safety advocate (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in safety is a step in the right direction, especially for these particular vessels.
- I've seen firsthand how quickly things can go wrong on the water.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Civil Engineer in Watercraft Design (San Diego, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with current trends towards improved passenger safety, this is a positive for the industry.
- The focus will ultimately lead to a better market for safe and sustainable designs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Tour Manager (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing compliance will be resource-intensive and challenging.
- Expect some initial resistance from operators due to cost implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Tourism Blogger (New York City, New York)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety is not something to skimp on, glad to know there will be stronger regulations.
- Content readers will likely appreciate the emphasis on safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill is a positive legal step in improving amphibious vehicle safety.
- I anticipate working on cases concerning compliance and policy implementation issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tourist Company Owner (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new regulations will increase overhead costs significantly.
- However, the improved safety could enhance our reputation leading to long-term gains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- Costs associated with developing and enforcing regulations must be covered.
- The potential liability for accidents might be reduced by implementing stricter safety measures.
- Impacts on insurance premiums for operators due to changes in risk profiles should be evaluated.
- There might be market reactions based on the perception of increased safety and potentially improved demand in the tourism sector.