Industry documents

 

In response to the NPRM published September 29, 2011, on Inflatable Personal Flotation Devices, the PFDMA has reviewed it and reviewed the adverse comment that caused the Direct Final Rule of March 30, 2011 to be withdrawn on September 13, 2011.

 

Our Association supports the Sept. 29^th NPRM on inflatable PFDs.

 

Observations on the adverse comment on the DFR. 

 

Our Association disagrees with the adverse comment and would like to point out some problems and errors with its content. We would like to specifically address several incorrect or misleading statements in the document.

 

1. The commenter states “Most importantly, there was anatomical testing conducted by Arthur D. Little under USCG Contract DOT-CG-90511A, Buoyancy and Stability Characteristics of the Human Body and Personal Flotation Devices that quantified minimum buoyancy and in-water performance requirements for adults defined as over 90 lbs.” This leaves the impression that smaller individuals were not tested, but that is not the case. Later the commenter states, “The Arthur Little Study did not evaluate anyone weighing less than 90 lb.” Again, that is not the case. Our Association members have been working on harmonization with the ISO 12402 standards and in that process researched the A.D. Little study and found that it included individuals down to 50 lbs, well below the range of “adults” as prescribed by the weight limits in USCG regulations.

 

2. Additionally, in 1995 the USCG established age 16 and a weight limit of 80 lbs as the starting point for use of inflatable PFDs. The change from the traditional weight limit of 90 lbs ensured that virtually all 16 year olds were included. In so doing, the regulations created a need to test persons younger than 16 in order to readily find individuals that met the weight limit. Hence, a lot of data has been obtained on younger users, contrary to the impression the adverse comment tries to impart. 

 

3. After approximately 15 years of boaters using inflatable PFDs with automatic inflators, it is apparent that these PFDs do not have reliability problems when properly maintained, and indicating inflators help to ensure the they are properly maintained. Additionally, there were other comments on the 1995 rulemaking that supported this approach to moving forward with inflatable PFD approval for children (younger users) “only after a review of acceptance and reliability data gathered on adult users”. It is hard to believe that there is significantly more to be learned about the reliability on these systems after 15 years.

 

4. By combining the data for all age groups from the ASE report, the adverse commenter tries to create doubt about the suitable of inflatable PFDs for youths age 13 to 15. However, the recommendation from the ASE report, when considering this age group alone is clear. It reads: “Use of automatically inflatable lifejackets by children 13 through 15 years appears to be entirely appropriate. These children appeared to be very capable of using the inflatable lifejackets. No panic behavior was observed in this age range. Comfort and appearance are factors in lifejacket wear, and participant comments suggest that many in this age range prefer the feel and appearance of the inflatable lifejackets over those of inherently buoyant PFDs.” 

 

5. The adverse commenter tries to create doubts about potential misuse and the ability of youths to use inflatable PFDs, and points to the need for more study. This issue does not need further study to allow the “adult only” approval provisions to deleted for the regulations and not every eventually can or should be resolved by regulation. During the 1995 rulemaking process, the USCG acknowledged that enforcement of a prohibition against non-swimmers using inflatable PFDs was not feasible but that didn’t prevent inflatable PFD approval altogether, and properly so. The PFDMA believes that the consensus standards-making process has been responsible and that it can be trusted to continue to act responsibly on this issue.

 

6. The May 1 document containing adverse comments contains other inaccuracies. In brief:  

 

 

The PFDMA fully supports the changes proposed in the present NPRM.

 

Arguments about misuse or potential misunderstanding should not be given weight in this discussion. We feel strongly that allowing this issue to reach the consensus standards-making forum is the best way for all stakeholders to be heard. The removal of the “adults only” limitation is needed to allow the standards-making process to move toward finding a consensus on whether inflatable PFDs should to be approved and used by youths in the 13 to 15 age range.  

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dorothy Takashina, Chair

Personal Flotation Device Manufacturers Association