Clfton Dean Ferguson

I DO NOT support the proposed rule Docket No. USCG–2008–1017 for the following reasons: Section: Background and Purpose Verbiage from that Section: "In fact, a review of recreational, passenger, and commercial fishing vessel casualty data shows that since 1992 there have been 39 vessel capsizings on or in the vicinity of the bars, resulting in 66 fatalities." Objection: According to the ODFW web site: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/catchindex.asp Ocean trip statistics JUST FOR SALMON (recreational + sport) are as follows: 1992 174,500 1993 89,800 1994 31,100 1995 43,800 1996 52,500 1997 37,900 1998 32,900 1999 54,500 2000 86,100 2001 131,800 2002 119,500 2003 156,900 2004 159,100 2005 87,600 2006 66,700 2007 93,300 Assuming 2008 was close to 2009 (93,300 trips), and then the total trips over the period cited amounts to 1,418,000 trips. In this period, there have been (according to your statistics) 39 capsizings. This amounts to a risk factor of: 0.00275% or a 1 in 36,359 trips, or 1 change in 100 years IF you went out every day. Note - these statistics are for OREGON ONLY and ONLY FOR SALMON FISHING. If we assume that Washington boaters make the same frequency of trips, well, then your chance of being in an accident go to 1 chance in 200 years IF you went out ever day! You are proposing we put further government oversight and restriction on boaters and citizens for a 1 chance in 200 years if you went out every day? Don't we have more pressing issues to solve? Section: Discussion of Proposed Rule Verbiage from that Section: The purpose of this rule is to help ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk to, the persons and vessels that operate on and in the vicinity of the bars along the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Objection: The fatalities you cited would likely not have been covered these restrictions. Only smaller vessels not involved in fatalities would be covered. Section: Small Entities Verbiage from that Section: The rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Objection: The economic impacts considered include: "(1) The rule does not require the purchase of equipment not already required to be on board the vessels affected. (2) The rule changes only the procedures for restricting and/or closing the bars, not the standards for determining when a restriction and/or closure will take place. (3) The restriction and/or closure of the bars is temporary and will only occur when necessary due to severe weather. (4) The maritime public will be advised of bar restrictions and/or closures via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other methods of communication. (5) Vessels may be allowed to enter the RNAs when a bar restriction and/or closure is in place on a case-by-case basis with permission of the COTP, or his designated representative." I object to this analysis as this will likely result in loss of use of small recreational vessels in the proposed areas. Those wishing to continue to cross the bar will be forced to purchase larger vessels which will be a SIGNIFICANT impact. Section: § 165.1322 Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars along the Coasts of Oregon and Washington Sub-Section: (12) Unsafe condition exists when the wave height within a regulated navigation area identified in paragraph (a) of this section is equal to or greater than the maximum wave height determined by the formula L/10 + F = W Objection: This formula is unduly restrictive. For example, a typical 26' recreational vessel will have the following dimension: L = 26, F = 2, so W = 2.6 + 2 = 4.6'. This is well within the operating window of these vessels. Additionally, the formula does not take into account wave frequency. A 15' wave at 30 seconds is easily navigable by small vessels. This type of wave and frequency is common on the Columbia River bar. Final objection: It is my experience that whenever I make decisions for others, they cease to make those decision for themselves - and trust my decision. They loose the ability or will to make informed decision on their own unless encouraged to do so. If we start having the government make all safety decisions for boaters, they will cease to make these decisions themselves. I would much rather see a campaign of public awareness and education rather than rule make as I feel it would be much more effecting an more in the spirit of being an American. Finally - please do not misinterpret these comments as contempt for the USCG. In my opinion, they are thankless heroes doing a terrific job. They have all my support! Thank you for consideration of my comments: Clifton Dean Ferguson 37733 Highway 30 Astoria, OR 97103 503-325-8474 ciferguson37733@charter.net