Along the lines of what Mr. Bevington is saying, what Mr. Volpe's motion talks about is ships that are seaworthy and suitable for the activity. The activity is not a normative activity, almost by definition. In other words, these activities were unanticipated when the Shipping Act came in, are specialized, and have some risk attached.
In other words, there may be ability to make regulation, but some of those activities may not even be of the use of the vessel. They may be the things that take place on the vessel. They may be things that just use the vessel as a platform or to get people to and from. This is adding that extra dimension. This relies on the activity as a generality, and I think that's the extra protection that witnesses at this committee were looking for around the specialized activities, not just the safe vessel. This is about the adventure activities themselves. This is how I read it.
I wonder, then, where else that protection will come from, because I think that's the advice we're getting, and I think Mr. Bevington saw it and got some assurance that there could be some regulation on that front. Where else will we register an intent, if not here, to recognize that this is different from simply the operation of any kind of boat or vessel? It's actually doing these other activities, using the vessel as a base.