For more than two years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s proposed vessel speed rule has drawn significant opposition from stakeholders within our industry and among coastal communities. NOAA’s proposed rule, which seeks to extend vessel speed restrictions to boats as small as 35 feet, is overly broad and fails to reflect the marine industry’s technological advancements in boat design, navigation and detection systems.
These innovations can significantly reduce the risk of marine mammal strikes, yet they were not given due consideration in NOAA’s proposal. By failing to recognize these advancements, the rule imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that could lead to unintended economic consequences that impact businesses, jobs and local economies that depend on recreational boating.
When this column went to print in early November, six states — Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Massachusetts — had sent letters to NOAA opposing the expansion of the 2008 North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule. Their opposition underscores NOAA’s lack of comprehensive stakeholder engagement when writing the rule and raises questions about NOAA’s diligence in rulemaking.
NMMA has long been a champion of sustainable boating practices. Indeed, our industry is a leader in innovation and sustainability, with everything from sustainable fuels to electric and hydrogen engines to pursuing the best ways to protect our diverse marine ecosystems. Boaters and anglers are the original conservationists, which is why our industry was left questioning why we were not consulted when NOAA was writing the rule.
The six states that rejected the rule reflect diverse marine ecosystems and boating communities that contribute significantly to their local economies. Their objections are rooted in the belief that the rule could have far-reaching negative implications without achieving the desired conservation outcomes. The fact that such a geographically and economically diverse set of states opposes the rule should signal to NOAA that there are serious flaws in the current approach. It is essential that the agency re-engages stakeholders to craft a rule that balances conservation with the needs of the boating community.
A primary concern that the NMMA and other industry partners have raised is the lack of consideration for technological advancements that could effectively reduce the risk of marine mammal strikes. Advances in sonar, radar and on-board detection systems have made it possible for boaters to identify and avoid marine life, thus minimizing the risk of collisions.
Moreover, modern boat designs and propulsion technologies are quieter and more efficient, and can further reduce the likelihood of disturbing or striking whales. By integrating these technologies into the rulemaking process, NOAA could develop a more flexible and targeted approach that addresses conservation goals without disproportionately impacting the boating industry.
The economic implications of the proposed rule are significant. The boating industry contributes more than $230 billion to the U.S. economy and supports more than 812,000 jobs. The imposition of broad speed restrictions could lead to a decline in boating activity, particularly in states where boating is a critical part of the local economy. This would affect not only manufacturers, but also marinas, repair shops, tourism businesses and a wide range of ancillary services that depend on a robust boating sector. Many communities in coastal states rely heavily on boating tourism, and the proposed rule could deter visitors, leading to a ripple effect on local economies.
The proposed rule also lacks clarity and specificity, particularly regarding enforcement mechanisms. Many boaters are concerned about how the rule would be implemented, monitored and enforced. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk of inconsistent enforcement, which could lead to confusion and compliance challenges.
Furthermore, the rule’s focus on vessel length as a determinant for speed restrictions does not account for the primary source of whale vessel strikes, which are overwhelmingly caused by oceangoing ships. The lack of differentiation between small boats and large, commercial vessels means that many boats that pose minimal risk to marine life would still be subject to the restrictions.
The resounding opposition to the rule from these six Atlantic states further demonstrates the need for a more collaborative approach to this issue. NOAA should work with state governments, marine industry representatives, technology companies and conservation groups to develop solutions that prioritize marine life protection while supporting the economic sustainability of coastal communities. The solutions offered in the private sector merit serious consideration, and NOAA’s reluctance to engage with these stakeholders reflects a missed opportunity for innovation.
Ultimately, NMMA continues to urge NOAA to reconsider the proposed rule and engage in a more meaningful dialogue with stakeholders. Protecting marine life is a shared goal, but it should not come at the cost of stifling an industry that provides enjoyment, recreation and economic benefits to millions of Americans. By embracing technology and working collaboratively with the boating community, NOAA can achieve a balance that promotes conservation and economic vitality
