[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59064-59065]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
33 CFR Part 175
[Docket No. USCG-2001-10163]
RIN 1625-AA31
Federal Requirements for Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking that would require owners of non-planing recreational
houseboats with propeller-driven propulsion located aft of the transom
to either install a propeller guard or use a combination of other
devices to avoid propeller injuries. The rulemaking is being withdrawn
after reconsideration of which vessels would be subject to the proposed
rule, the nature of the safety measures to be required, and the costs
that would likely result.
DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published at 66 FR 63645,
December 10, 2001, is withdrawn on October 18, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Ludwig, Project Manager, Office
of Boating Safety, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at 202-372-1061 or by
e-mail at Jeffrey.A.Ludwig@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 10, 2001, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Federal Requirements For
Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures'' in the Federal Register (66 FR
63645). The NPRM described a proposed Coast Guard requirement that
owners of non-planing recreational houseboats with propeller-driven
propulsion located aft of the transom install one of two propulsion
unit measures or employ three combined measures. This proposal
responded to recommendations made by the National Boating Safety
Advisory Council (NBSAC). The NPRM was based on an expectation that a
significant reduction in the number of boaters who are seriously or
fatally injured when struck by a non-planing recreational houseboat
with propeller-driven propulsion would occur.
Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received approximately 190 comments regarding the
NPRM. Comments were received from those who have been injured by boat
propellers; the relatives and friends of those injured or killed in
such accidents; health care providers; boating safety and environmental
advocacy groups; businesses and business associations; state and
federal government agencies; and members of the general public.
Many commenters supported the proposed rule in order to better
protect the boating public from propeller injuries. Some of those also
advocated reducing the phase-in period to one year, and some advocated
inclusion of pontoon houseboats under the requirements of the proposed
rule. Among those who generally supported the proposed rule, some
preferred using propeller guards over swim ladder interlock systems
because they expected propeller guards to better protect swimmers. A
few commenters also suggested increased costs could be passed on from
manufacturers and rental companies to consumers.
Some commenters opposed the proposed rule because they perceived
the number of casualties as insufficient to justify the proposed rule
and argued the costs of implementation would be significantly higher
than estimated in the NPRM. Many of these commenters also expressed
concerns about the high maintenance costs associated with propeller
guards, the increased danger of collisions when swim ladder interlock
systems disable propellers, and the lack of practical benefit to be
gained from clear view devices because of the length of many
houseboats. A few suggested the proposed rule would be unenforceable or
otherwise ineffective and advocated improved boater education.
Some commenters requested a more precise definition of houseboat,
particularly whether monohulls and pontoon designs would be subject to
the same requirements, and more detailed guidance on acceptable
propeller guards and swim ladder interlock systems. One commenter
suggested the proposed rule would effect a shift of liability from boat
operators to boat manufacturers.
Withdrawal
The Coast Guard is withdrawing the NPRM published on December 10,
2001, after reconsideration of the the costs that would likely result,
the characteristics of the safety measures to
[[Page 59065]]
be required, and uncertainty concerning the appropriate definition of
``houseboat.'' The Coast Guard believes its resources would be better
directed toward regulatory projects that would have a greater impact on
propeller injury avoidance.
The NPRM estimated that propeller guards, which would be the least
expensive option provided under the proposed rule, could be self-
installed for approximately $300 each. Equipping the estimated 100,000
houseboats that would be covered by the rule was estimated to result in
a cost of approximately $30 million. A reassessment of these costs
after publication of the NPRM revealed that most boats would need to be
lifted out of the water for propeller guard installation, boats with
twin engines would require a guard for each engine, and installation
would be beyond the capabilities of most owners and operators. For
these reasons, a more realistic average cost per boat is approximately
$1500, for a total cost of $150 million. This figure does not include
costs of periodic maintenance to clear debris from guards or the
resulting decrease in fuel efficiency.
Because of the significantly higher cost of implementing the
proposed rule, the Coast Guard is exploring options that would more
effectively prevent propeller injuries and impose a smaller burden on
the economy. For example, requiring ignition cut-off switches on an
undetermined segment of recreational, propeller-driven boats could be a
more cost effective approach, and there is also room for improvement in
boating safety education.
Additionally, as some of the comments pointed out, the NPRM lacked
a practical definition of ``houseboat,'' and straightforward
performance requirements for acceptable propeller guards and swim
ladder interlock systems. Although not independent grounds for
withdrawing this rulemaking, the need for further research to resolve
these questions, and the potential negative effect of more specific
performance requirements on costs, made further pursuit of this
rulemaking at this time even less preferable in comparison to other
alternatives.
The Coast Guard remains deeply concerned about propeller injuries,
and is committed to reducing them. In doing so, though, the cost and
effectiveness of alternative measures must be reasonably considered.
The Coast Guard would like to thank those who submitted comments.
All comments were considered in this decision. To view comments, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time, under ``Search Documents''
enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-10163), and
click on ``Submit.'' You may also visit the Docket Management Facility
in room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
Authority
This action is taken under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 4302;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Dated: October 10, 2007.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E7-20604 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P