# Please Comment on Throw Bag Reg



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

RRFW Riverwire - Throw Bag In Lieu of Throw Cushion Comments Needed Today!
February 18, 2017

As most river runners know, United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations say that ALL watercraft 16 feet long and over must carry a Type IV throwable personal flotation device (PFD) as per 33 CFR 175.15.

Since 2014, the State of Utah has allowed a Throw Rope with a minimum of 40 feet of line to be used in lieu of a throw cushion where all vessel occupants are required to wear PFD’s. 

Now, Utah wants to drop this option. Your comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Friday March 3, 2017.

Did you know that in rough water, both the USCG and the Arizona Game and Fish Department acknowledge Type IV throwable devices are not recommended? 

Indeed, the United States Coast Guard notes a Type IV PFD is “Not for rough water survival.” 
(cite http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/ringlb.asp ). 

The Boaters Guide of Arizona handbook of boating laws and responsibilities, page 38, notes the following with regards to TYPE IV throwable devices: “These cushions and ring buoys are designed to be thrown to someone in trouble. Since a Type IV is not designed to be worn, it is neither for rough waters nor for persons who are unable to hold onto it."

Many river runners know that Canyonlands and Dinosaur National Park and the Bureau of Land Management at Westwater Canyon all require a wearable PFD. They also allow a throw bag in lieu of a throw cushion. 

The State of Utah notes “the intent of the rule is solid with swift water rescue techniques” but also notes they must be in compliance with 33 CFR 175.15. Utah also notes there “will be an anticipated additional cost of $15 per boat” for boats 16 feet and over.

Your comments are needed to keep the existing regulation in place. 

Please send your comments by e-mail to Officer Tammy Wright [email protected]

With utmost respect, please tell Officer Wright that:

You want to see the rule R651-215-8 (River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD) remain in effect.

The United States Coast Guard has recognized in rough water, Type IV throw cushions are not recommended. 

Recreational rough water enthusiasts are already required to wear a pfd by regulation. Having a throwable device in lieu of a cushion makes sense on Rough water and has been recognized by the State of Utah as being a solid swiftwater rescue technique. 

If you live and boat in Utah, please cc your Congressional representatives. You can find your Congressional Representative here:http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

If you would like, please cc Lieutenant Robert Cole [email protected] with the United States Coast Guard, Sector San Diego, and Tom Martin [email protected] of River Runners For Wilderness.

For more information about this rule change, please see https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170201/41154.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River Runners for Wilderness. To sign-up for future Riverwires, send an e-mail address to [email protected] and we'll add it to the RRFW Riverwire e-mail alerts list. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks for getting this out here, Tom.

Here's the email I sent, please cut, paste, and personalize as you wish:



> Ms. Wright,
> 
> I am a whitewater boater with ________ years experience running whitewater rivers in the Western US and frequently in Utah. I respectfully request that the State of Utah keep Rule R651-215-8 (River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD) in effect. I have performed multiple river rescues using a throw bag in swift flowing water which were successful solely because I was able to haul in the “swimmer” rather than watch them continue floating downstream in rapids holding onto a Type IV throwable floatation device. The requirement to have a Type IV throwable floatation device for boaters who must, by law, wear personal floatation devices, places an unnecessary burden on recreational boaters to procure and carry this relatively useless piece of equipment. Furthermore, the United States Coast Guard has stated that in rough water, Type IV throw cushions are not recommended.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration of my views,


----------



## T.O.Mac (Jun 6, 2015)

done and done!


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Andy, 

That's a very nice template letter you have crafted. Thank you for doing that. I have reached out to AW and ACA to see if they can get on board as well. 

Thank you T.O.Mac. 

Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## CurrentLY (Aug 24, 2016)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## daveb1 (Jul 18, 2008)

Done. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Here's my working draft letter, FYI.

Utah Office of Administrative Rules
Regarding the proposed removal of Utah Natural Resources Section R651-215-8

February 20, 2017

Dear Officer Wright ([email protected] ),

It was with some surprise that I recently became aware of a proposal by the State of Utah to rescind Utah Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Section R651-215-8 titled River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD. (cite: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170201/41154.htm )

Did you know Lewis and Clark used throw ropes when in swift (rough) waters with their canoes in the Voyage of Discovery with lifesaving effect? (Cite: October 25, 1805, Lewis and Clark Expedition) To this day, the use of a throwable rope is still recognized as an effective swift (rough) water safety device.

Since 2014, we in the swift (rough) water community have been thrilled that the State of Utah has allowed a Throw Rope with a minimum of 40 feet of line to be used in lieu of a throw cushion *where all vessel occupants are required to wear lifejackets (PFD’s)*. 

As most swift (rough) water river runners know, when in swift (rough) water, we are required to wear a lifejacket. We also know that the ability to throw a rope to someone who has been cast into the river to pull them either to shore or to another watercraft has proven to be a lifesaving device. 

We understand that United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations say that watercraft 16 feet long and over must carry a Type IV throwable personal flotation device (throw cushion or life ring) as per 33 CFR 175.15. 

We note that in swift (rough) water, both the USCG and the Arizona Game and Fish Department acknowledge Type IV throwable cushions are not recommended. The United States Coast Guard notes a Type IV throwable cushion or ring is “Not for rough water survival.” (cite http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/ringlb.asp )

The Boaters Guide of Arizona handbook of boating laws and responsibilities, page 38, notes the following with regards to TYPE IV throwable devices: “These cushions and ring buoys are designed to be thrown to someone in trouble. Since a Type IV is not designed to be worn, it is neither for rough waters nor for persons who are unable to hold onto it."

The State of Utah notes the intent of R651-215-8 as presently written “is solid with swift water rescue techniques” and we support that determination 100%. 
(cite https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170201/41154.htm )

The State of Utah also notes they must be in compliance with 33 CFR 175.15. With utmost respect, it may be possible you have overlooked that on swift (rough water), the managing agencies of these river sections have imposed a more restrictive and stringent standard than 33 CFR 175.15. 
In these specific areas of swift (rough) water, all participants *must *wear a lifejacket (personal flotation device), a more restrictive and stringent standard than 33 CFR 175.15. Only within this more restrictive standard is R651-215-8 applied in these areas where participants are wearing a lifejacket (PFD) by regulation.

As such, we ask you to keep R651-215-8 (River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD) in effect as written. 

On a personal note, I have greatly enjoyed whitewater (swift/rough) recreation in the State of Utah for decades, and have written two riverguides for whitewater enthusiasts in Utah, the _Guide to the San Juan River_ and the _Guide to the Colorado & Green Rivers in the Canyonlands of Utah & Colorado_. River safety is of the highest priority to me, my family, and all of the individuals cc’d in this letter. 

This proposed rule change does nothing to enhance or benefit the issue of swift (rough) water river safety that even Lewis and Clark understood two centuries ago. 

Cordially yours, 


Tom Martin PT
419 West Navajo Road
Flagstaff, AZ 86001

cc 

United States House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
_Representative_ Hunter, Chairman,_ Representative Garamendi, Ranking Member_ 

United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Senator Sullivan, Chairman, Senator Peters, Ranking Member, Senator Lee, Member

Governor Herbert 

Utah Department of Natural Resources
Executive Director Michael Styler [email protected] 
Law Enforcement Director Sid Groll [email protected]
Watershed Director Alan Clark [email protected]

United States Coast Guard, Sector San Diego, Lieutenant Robert Cole [email protected]


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Someone else sent this in:

Dear Officer Wright,

I have been a whitewater boater for fifty-five years, with experience that includes five Grand Canyon floats as a boatman. I've come to realize the uselessness of throw cushions in a rough-water environment, wasting precious time and energy when a river throw-bag rope would best serve.

I would, with the utmost respect, strongly recommend that the state of Utah keep the rule R651-215-8 (River Throw Bags in Lieu of Type IV
PFD) in effect.

Thank you for your public service,


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Thanks for the heads up, email sent!
I also mentioned that River Rangers at West Water, Desolation Canyon, Cataract Canyon, and Grand Canyon which I have talked to, feel the same. 
Tactfully( I believe) suggested involving the agency's, which regulate white water sections in Utah, in helping to shape future Utah Boating law, as it pertains to white water, since they deal with river running everyday, and are responsible for rescues on the sections which they regulate.

I have found Blm and Park service river regs to mostly be very reasonable in the state of Utah, but State regs often not very appropriate to white water.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Bump!!


----------



## MustacheTheGauley (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree and it has been done.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Thanks Man!


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Utah Office of Administrative Rules February 23, 2017
PO Box 141007
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1007

Regarding the proposed removal of Utah Natural Resources Section R651-215-8

Dear Officer Wright ([email protected]),

River Runners For Wilderness was founded in 2002 and represents a broad spectrum of river runners and American citizens who care about the river resources in the Colorado River watershed. Our members, now numbering over two thousand with outreach to over 40,000 whitewater enthusiasts, continue to have a deep concern for the future of the recreational and safety values of the Colorado River watershed and the management of these national treasures.

It was with some surprise that we recently became aware of a proposal by the State of Utah to rescind Utah Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Section R651-215-8 titled River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD. (cite: https://rules.utah.gov/public…/bulletin/…/20170201/41154.htm )

Did you know Lewis and Clark used throw ropes when in swift (rough) waters with their canoes in the Voyage of Discovery with lifesaving effect? (Cite: October 25, 1805, Lewis and Clark Expedition) To this day, the use of a throwable rope is still recognized as an effective swift (rough) water safety device.

Since 2014, we in the swift (rough) water community have been thrilled that the State of Utah has allowed river runners wearing lifejackets to choose either a cushion or a bag of rope for rough water rescue. This ability to choose either a Throw Rope with a minimum of 40 feet of line OR a throw cushion where all vessel occupants are required to wear lifejackets (PFD’s) has been a safety promoting breath of regulatory fresh air.

Simply stated, R651-215-8 says when a river runner has to wear a life jacket by regulation, they must also have either a cushion or rope, one or the other. It’s their choice.

As most swift (rough) water river runners know, when in swift (rough) water, we are required to wear a lifejacket. We also know that the ability to throw a rope to someone who has been cast into the river to pull them either to shore or to another watercraft has proven to be a lifesaving device. 

We understand that United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations say that watercraft 16 feet long and over must carry a Type IV throwable personal flotation device (throw cushion or life ring) as per 33 CFR 175.15. 

We note that in swift (rough) water, both the USCG and the Arizona Game and Fish Department acknowledge Type IV throwable cushions are not recommended. The United States Coast Guard notes a Type IV throwable cushion or ring is “Not for rough water survival.” (cite http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/ringlb.asp )

The Boaters Guide of Arizona handbook of boating laws and responsibilities, page 38, notes the following with regards to TYPE IV throwable devices: “These cushions and ring buoys are designed to be thrown to someone in trouble. Since a Type IV is not designed to be worn, it is neither for rough waters nor for persons who are unable to hold onto it."

The reasoning behind this rough water disclaimer is a cushion does not get you out of rough water. Also, a cushion is a one-shot application. A rope can be deployed to multiple swimmers and can be used repeatedly during one rescue attempt. 

The State of Utah notes the intent of R651-215-8 as presently written “is solid with swift water rescue techniques” and we support that determination 100%. 

The State of Utah also notes they must be in compliance with 33 CFR 175.15. With utmost respect, it may be possible that on swift (rough water), the managing agencies of these river sections have imposed a more restrictive and stringent standard than 33 CFR 175.15. In these specific areas of swift (rough) water, all participants must wear a lifejacket (personal flotation device), a more restrictive and stringent standard than 33 CFR 175.15. Only within this more restrictive standard is R651-215-8 applied in these areas where participants are wearing a lifejacket (PFD) by regulation.

As such, we ask you to keep R651-215-8 (River Throw Bag in Lieu of Type IV PFD) in effect as written. 

 On a personal note, I have greatly enjoyed whitewater (swift/rough) recreation in the State of Utah for decades, and have written two riverguides for whitewater enthusiasts in Utah, the Guide to the San Juan River and the Guide to the Colorado & Green Rivers in the Canyonlands of Utah & Colorado. River safety is of the highest priority to me, my family, and all of the individuals cc’d in this letter. 

This proposed rule change removes choice and does nothing to enhance or benefit the issue of swift (rough) water river safety that even Lewis and Clark understood two centuries ago. 

Cordially yours, 


Tom Martin PT
Council Member 
River Runners For Wilderness
PO Box 30821
Flagstaff, AZ 86003-0821
Hm: 928-556-0742
Mobile: 928-856-9065
[email protected] 
www.rrfw.org

Cc: United States House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Representative Hunter, Chairman, Representative Garamendi, Ranking Member [email protected] [email protected]

United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Senator Sullivan, Chairman, Senator Peters, Ranking Member, Senator Lee, Member [email protected]

Utah Governor Herbert ([email protected] )

Utah Department of Natural Resources
Executive Director Michael Styler [email protected] 
Law Enforcement Director Sid Groll [email protected]
Watershed Director Alan Clark [email protected]
Boating Law Administrator Ty Hunter [email protected]

United States Coast Guard, Sector San Diego, Lieutenant Robert Cole [email protected]


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Well Done! Your comments are starting to help!! The very helpful folks at the Utah DNR would like you to send your comments to a few more folks. While we don't agree that a useless product needs to be carried on rough water, here is their update that was just released. Please keep on commenting!!: 

Thank you for your comments and concerns about the repeal of R651-215-8 River Throw Bag in Lieu of a Type IV PFD. I want to clarify a few items in regards to the repeal of this rule.


*Why was UAC R651-215-8 repealed?*
In May of 2016, we were made aware the rule was in conflict with the Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) (Title 33 Subsection 175.15). A state cannot exclude safety items required on vessels by CFR, consequently, the rule had to be changed.


*Who will this repeal affect?*
Only vessels greater than 16 feet in length. 



*Can I still carry a throw bag?*
Yes, the State of Utah strongly encourages all vessels on the rivers to carry a minimum of one throw bag for a swift water rescue - in addition to the equipment required by law or rule.


I understand your frustration and concerns through your comments. I encourage you to contact the following individuals and entities:

Your United States Representative: Directory of Representatives · House.gov
and
Your United States Senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
and
The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (NBSAC): [email protected]

Please request that the CFR Title 33 Subsection 175.15 include an exemption from the requirement to carry a Type IV PFD or throwable PFD for vessels on river sections where PFDs are required to be worn, if a throw bag with a minimum of 40 feet of line is carried.

Thank you,

-- 
Ty J Hunter
Boating Program Manager,
Boating Law Administrator 
Utah Division of Parks and Recreation
(801) 440-5106 office
(801) 538-BOAT Boating Education 
[email protected]


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

I have asked Ty for a clarification as the full text of his note said this:

*Who will this repeal affect?*
Only vessels greater than 16 feet in length. If your vessel falls with those parameters you will need to carry a U.S.C.G. approved Type IV PFD or a throwable PFD in addition to approved PFD’s for each person onboard the vessel. 





This seems to be saying what we would like it to say, but in reality, in rough water where the boat is 16 feet and over, we will need a lifejacket and throw cushion (Type 4 PFD). 



I like that he has added your commments shoudl go to The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (NBSAC): [email protected]


All the best, tom


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

So Tom,

As we now understand it, the State of Utah actually has no choice but to repeal the rule because Utah's rule is in direct conflict with Federal regulations. So basically we're all barking up the wrong tree by sending our comments to Utah who has no say in making Federal policy. In reality we should be sending comments to our congressional representatives and, more specifically, to the National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (NBSAC): ([email protected]).

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Andy, it would seem to be that way, but no. There is nothing happening at the NBSAC and there IS an open public comment where Utah is trying to say the more restrictive rule (gotta wear a pfd) can't include a stipulation where a person can choose a throwable PFD or Rope. We are saying yes, there is the ability within a more stringent rule to include a stipulation.) Either way, the NBSAC will hear the rumble. Yours, tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Andy, one more point. Are you aware of a single corrective 175.15 exemption since 1980? I am not saying one is not needed, it's just that the folks who are hearing it where we have a chance want us to route our comments now to the NBSAC. Just sayin, yours, tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Being Thrown Under The Bus...*

Hi Andy,

I just had a great conversation with Scott Brewen, the Director of the Oregon State Marine Board. Scott is one of the NBSAC members. He was completely unaware of the issue, and appreciated the outreach as otherwise e-mails sent to the general NBSAC would have no context. 

He expressed frustration in that the Board has made a number of really good suggestions to the USCG over the years, and there has been little to no movement on issues of similar scope. He noted it could take roughly six years to see CFR changes if all the stars were aligned. 

Sadly, it appears Utah is throwing us under the bus, being unwilling to allow a more restrictive ruling with a clause (if this-than that) to stand.

Yours, Tom


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Tom Martin said:


> Sadly, it appears Utah is throwing us under the bus, being unwilling to allow a more restrictive ruling with a clause (if this-than that) to stand.


Tom,


Glad to hear that you're having conversations with people that are tied in to the Federal side of things and who may be able to channel public input to the right place. Please let us know where comments should be directed when you find out.

However, regarding Utah, does the state really have any choice in the matter? It appears that they are bound by the Federal regulations. If so, then I think it is a bit disingenuous to state that they are "throwing us under the bus." 

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Andy, The Federal folks are unaware Utah is asking us to channel comments to the Feds. The "Feds" know nothing about this. How can Utah say that is the right thing to do? 

You ask does Utah have a choice? Yes they do. Utah has a more restrictive clause that works. They researched this before making it a rule in 2014. They are now wanting to take that Rule away, citing Federal regulation, and yet the Feds say the item in question is not for rough water. 

Our comments should be directed to the Utah DNR, as the first post on this issue directed. 

You are welcome to your own opinion of course, but it is curious you are saying the person doing the gumshoe work on this issue is "a bit disingenuous" with absolutly nothing to back up your statement.

Cordially yours, tryingtogetthisstickoutofmyeye


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hey Andy, Check out the following:

In 2014, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) asked the USCG to remove the need for rafters to carry a Type IV throwable (cite: BSAC Resolution Number 2014-92-02) 

Going back further, in 2003 the Western States Boating Law Administrators did the same. (cite: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-1) 

I only found this out when I was contacted by a boating law administrator (not from Utah by the way) this last Monday who thought I should know this. 

Utah just removed an excellent boating rule that happens to be ahead of its time. 

Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## Roguelawyer (Apr 2, 2015)

I am not so sure the conflict of laws is as simple as the Utah folks stated it to Tom. Supremacy issues are always interesting. Some of the rivers are federal jurisdiction. Most but not all tribal areas are federal as well. But the USCG regs might be adopted by the states as opposed to being enforceable upon them. 

The 10th amendment states that all powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Of course one of those powers enumerated is the power to regulate commerce between the states. Commerce clause has been so overly broadly interpreted that one would be hard pressed to find something that does not affect interstate commerce.

That's a long winded way of saying it's probably not that simple of a question to answer in the state agency people are giving the copout answer "go talk to the feds."


----------

