[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53364-53369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21866]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Subchapter S
[Docket No. USCG-2011-0497]
RIN 1625-AB73
Recreational Vessel Propeller Strike and Carbon Monoxide
Poisoning Casualty Prevention
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public input on how best to prevent
recreational boating casualties caused by propeller strikes and carbon
monoxide (CO) poisoning. The Coast Guard, in particular, seeks comments
on specific measures to protect recreational
[[Page 53365]]
boaters in the water near the stern of a recreational vessel. The Coast
Guard also seeks additional ideas, specific data, and other facts
relating to propeller strike and CO poisoning-related casualties to
help guide the Coast Guard in selecting the best course of action to
address these issues.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before November 25,
2011 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0497 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking, call or e-mail Jeff Ludwig, Coast Guard;
telephone 202-372-1061, e-mail [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
A. Propeller Strike-Related Casualties
B. CO Poisoning-Related Casualties
IV. Information Requested
A. General Questions Regarding Measures To Address Propeller
Strike-Related and CO Poisoning-Related Casualties
B. Specific Measures To Address Propeller Strike-Related and CO
Poisoning-Related Casualties
C. Specific Information Sought
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to respond to this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments
received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you have provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0497), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
type ``USCG-2011-0497'' in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Read Comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box type ``USCG-2011-0497'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may
submit a public meeting request to the docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that holding a
public meeting would aid us in determining how best to prevent
recreational boating casualties caused by propeller strikes and carbon
monoxide (CO) poisoning, we will hold a meeting at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
ABYC American Boat and Yacht Council
CO Carbon monoxide
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECOS Engine cut-off switches
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Committee
NASBLA National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Sec. Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Background
In a recent five year period, approximately 82.1 million people
annually participated in recreational boating as an outdoor recreation
activity in the United States.\1\ Of that population, approximately
53.8 million people enjoyed recreational boating on a motorized
recreational vessel. Unfortunately, motorized recreational boating
poses risks, including property damage, human injury, and even death.
One of these risks is boating casualties caused by persons being struck
by a recreational vessel propeller. An additional, more recently
discovered
[[Page 53366]]
risk is boating casualties caused by carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.
The Coast Guard is interested in measures to reduce these two specific
risks, both of which involve persons near the rear of a motorized
recreational vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H. Ken Cordell et al., Long-Term National Trends in Outdoor
Recreation Activity Participation--1980 to Now, May 2009 (A
Recreation Research Report in the Internet Research Information
Series), available at http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec12rpt.pdf. This number represents the estimated
number of people, operators and passengers who participated in
recreational boating in 2005-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 46 U.S.C. chapter 43 (Recreational Vessels), the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for establishing
minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated
equipment, and for requiring installation, carrying, or use of
associated equipment. See 46 U.S.C. 4302(a). The Coast Guard, on behalf
of the Secretary, carries out this responsibility.
Propeller Strike-Related Casualties
Since the mid-1990s, the Coast Guard has investigated the
appropriate course of action to address propeller strike-related
casualties, to understand the causes of these casualties, and to
determine the best way to prevent casualties from occurring. The Coast
Guard has solicited requests for comments on various proposals to
reduce propeller strike-related casualties, and proposed and then
withdrew two separate rulemakings addressing this issue. The first
rulemaking sought public input on the use of swimming ladders, warning
notices, clear aft vision, propeller-shaft engagement alarms, engine
cut-off switches, and education to address recreational vessel and
propeller strike-related casualties. See 60 FR 25191 (May 11, 1995)
(Request for comments); 61 FR 13123 (Mar. 26, 1996) (Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking); 62 FR 22991 (Apr. 28, 1997) (Request for
comments). The Coast Guard withdrew this rulemaking because of a lack
of sufficient data for the proposals at that time. See 66 FR 63650
(Dec. 10, 2001) (Notice of Withdrawal).
At the same time the Coast Guard withdrew the first rulemaking, it
initiated the second rulemaking, which focused on propeller injury
mitigation devices commonly referred to as ``propeller guards.'' The
notice of proposed rulemaking proposed requiring owners of certain
recreational houseboats to either install a propeller guard or to use
all of the following propeller injury avoidance measures: a swim ladder
interlock, an aft visibility device, and an engine cut-off switch. See
66 FR 63645 (Dec. 10, 2001). The Coast Guard withdrew this rulemaking
after public comments raised several issues, including the lack of a
practical definition of a houseboat and straightforward performance
requirements, and the potential costs of installing propeller guards.
See 72 FR 59064 (Oct. 18, 2007) (Notice of Withdrawal). In the Notice
of Withdrawal, the Coast Guard stated that it is still ``exploring
options that would more effectively prevent propeller injuries and
impose a smaller burden on the economy,'' and specifically noted engine
cut-off switches and boating safety education as two of those options.
Id. at 59065.
In 2006, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC)
established a Propeller Injury Working Group to consider the
development of educational formats, review of technologies, risk
management techniques, accident scenarios, cost benefit analysis, and
high-risk recreational vessel definitions and determinations. See NBSAC
Resolution 2005-76-04, available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC. The working group proposed four recommendations: (1) Develop a
rental vessel education kit, (2) require the installation of engine
cut-off switches, (3) require operators to use installed engine cut-off
switches, and (4) require operators of vessels to shut off the engine
when individuals in the water are within an unsafe distance from the
vessel. NBSAC endorsed these recommendations and forwarded them to the
Coast Guard for further consideration. See NBSAC Resolution
2006-77-01, 2006-77-02, 2006-77-03 and 2006-77-04,
available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC.
To address NSBAC's second and third recommendations (NBSAC
Resolution 2006-77-02 and 2006-77-03) involving the
installation, maintenance, and use of engine cut-off switches \2\ and
to follow-up on the discussion of engine cut-off switches in the Notice
of Withdrawal of the propeller guard rulemaking, the Coast Guard
initiated a separate rulemaking titled ``Installation and Use of Engine
Cut-Off Switches'' (ECOS) (RIN 1625-AB34). In the ECOS rulemaking, the
Coast Guard seeks to prevent recreational boating casualties caused by
persons being struck by a recreational vessel or propeller when the
vessel operator is separated from the operating controls (e.g., falls
overboard or is ejected). The ECOS rulemaking, however, only addresses
one cause of propeller-strikes. Recreational boaters in the water near
the rear of a recreational vessel also face the possibility of being
inadvertently struck by a vessel's propeller even when the vessel
operator is in control of the vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In response to the first recommendation (NBSAC Resolution
2006-77-01), the Coast Guard developed a rental education
kit, which is now available to vessel liveries through the following
Web site: http://rentalboatsafety.com/participate.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is initiating this rulemaking to seek public input
on NSBAC's fourth recommendation in NBSAC Resolution 2006-77-
04, as well as other options to prevent casualties caused when persons
in the water near the rear of a recreational vessel are inadvertently
struck by a vessel's propeller. For example, a person may be struck by
a propeller when using the lower unit of the recreational vessel's
propulsion system as a step to reboard the vessel. If the propeller is
spinning while a person is attempting to use the lower unit as a step,
the person may either step directly onto the spinning propeller or slip
off the lower unit of the propulsion system and fall onto the spinning
propeller resulting in severe injuries and possibly death.
CO Poisoning-Related Casualties
Over the last decade, boating-related activities that require
participants to be near the rear of a recreational vessel in close
proximity to a vessel's engine exhaust emissions have increased in
popularity. With an increase in the prevalence of these activities,
casualties associated with these activities have also increased, and
investigations of these casualties have led to an increased
understanding of CO concentrations near the rear of recreational
vessels.
A potentially deadly gas that is odorless, colorless, and
tasteless, CO occurs as a component of internal combustion engine
exhaust. When inhaled, CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and
displaces the oxygen needed by the body, resulting in hypoxia
(suffocation) of body tissues.
In 2000, the National Park Service, in coordination with the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the
Coast Guard, initiated a study to evaluate CO exposure from generators
and propulsion engines on houseboats.\3\ This study revealed high
concentrations of CO on and around houseboats using gasoline-powered
generators. In 2002, the National Park Service, NIOSH, and the Coast
Guard began working to measure CO levels on other types of recreational
vessels and to evaluate new engineering technologies
[[Page 53367]]
designed to reduce CO poisonings related to the vessels' operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Report: HETA #2000-0400-2956, HETA #
2002-0325-2956, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona and
Utah (January 2005) available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2000-0400-2956.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
exhaust emission standards for marine engines, including first-time EPA
standards for sterndrive and inboard engines. See 73 FR 59034
(``Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment''). The EPA standards apply to new marine engines, and the
Coast Guard expects these EPA standards to have a dramatic effect on
the levels of CO in the exhaust emissions of new sterndrive and inboard
engines and thus reduce CO levels on recreational vessels with such
engines.
In response to the EPA standards, as well as to address CO
poisoning-related casualties, manufacturers have developed new
catalyst-based low CO sterndrive and inboard engines. These EPA
standards and resulting new technology, however, apply only to newly
manufactured engines, and do not affect potentially dangerous levels of
CO on recreational vessels with older engines.
The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
(NASBLA), as well as some States, are also concerned with the issue of
CO poisoning-related casualties, and efforts to address this issue
cover both new as well as existing recreational engines by focusing on
recreational vessel operation rather than on technology. NASBLA has
been engaged in addressing this issue since 2003 and has developed a
consensus model act prohibiting persons from operating any recreational
vessel or having the engine idle while someone is in the water and
holding onto the rear of the recreational vessel. See NASBLA Model Act
for ``Safe Practices for Boat-Towed Watersports'' (September 10, 2007),
available at http://nasbla.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3290. At
least five States have enacted laws addressing CO poisoning-related
casualties based on this model act.
California and Washington have prohibited operating a
recreational vessel or having the engine of the vessel idle while an
individual is ``teak surfing, platform dragging, or bodysurfing
behind'' \4\ or ``occupying or holding onto the swim platform, swim
deck, swim step, or swim ladder of the vessel,'' except ``when an
individual is occupying the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or
swim ladder for a very brief period of time while assisting with the
docking or departure of the vessel, while exiting or entering the
vessel, or while the vessel is engaged in law enforcement or emergency
rescue activity.'' See Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 681 (West); Wash.
Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 79A.60.660 (West).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Teak surfing'' or ``platform dragging'' means holding onto
the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, swim ladder, or any portion
of the exterior of the transom of a motor driven vessel for any
amount of time while the motor driven vessel is underway at any
speed. See Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 681(d) (West); Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. Sec. 79A.60.660(4) (West). ``Bodysurfing'' means swimming
or floating on one's stomach or on one's back on or in the wake
directly behind a motor driven vessel that is underway. See Cal.
Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 681(e) (West); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec.
79A.60.660(5) (West).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada has prohibited operation of a recreational vessel
while any person is hanging onto, or sitting, standing or riding on, a
swim platform or a swim ladder that is attached to the vessel as a form
of reckless or negligent operation of a vessel. See Nev. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 488.400; Nev. Admin. Code Sec. 488.435.
Oregon prohibits operating a recreational vessel or having
the vessel's engine idle while any person holds onto or occupies any
portion of the vessel located aft of the transom, including a step,
ladder, platform or deck, in order to ride on that portion of the
vessel while the vessel is under way at any speed or to be pulled by
the vessel, except when assisting in the docking or departure of the
vessel, exiting or entering the vessel, or engaging in law enforcement
activities. See Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 830.362.
Pennsylvania prohibits operation of a recreational vessel
at any speed with a person or persons sitting, riding, or hanging on a
swim platform or swim ladder attached to the vessel, except when
launching, retrieving, docking or anchoring the vessel. See 58 Pa. Code
Sec. 105.3.
The Coast Guard is initiating this rulemaking to consider options
to prevent CO poisoning-related casualties on all recreational vessels,
especially existing recreational vessels that are not affected by the
2008 EPA exhaust emission standards or by new technology for marine
engines.
IV. Information Requested
In addition to any general information, data, ideas, and comments
that the public would like to provide, the Coast Guard requests
comments on specific measures outlined below to prevent propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties. The Coast Guard
also seeks specific information regarding certain data and other facts
related to these measures, as listed below. Please provide as much
quantitative data as possible, including data sources and complete
citations.
A. General Questions Regarding Measures To Address Propeller Strike-
Related and CO Poisoning-Related Casualties
When responding to the general questions below, please provide
quantitative data on costs, benefits, and other relevant information,
specifying sources of information and citations.
1. Recreational boating accidents can cause a variety of negative
impacts, including loss of life, injuries, and property damage. What
sources of data or information exist detailing benefits or avoided
damages which may result from the use of measures to avoid propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?
2. What vessel types should be considered for mandatory measures to
reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties (e.g., all motorized vessels, motorized vessels with certain
engine configurations, certain types of motorized vessels (e.g.,
houseboats)?
3. Some vessels have measures already installed to reduce or
eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties.
What data exists to estimate the percentage of recreational vessels
that have measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and
CO poisoning-related casualties?
4. How many and what types of recreational vessels or engines do
not have measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and
CO poisoning-related casualties?
5. What is the average amount of time it would take for a vessel
operator to use each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-
related and CO poisoning-related casualties?
6. How would operators and passengers be impacted by the number of
times each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and
CO poisoning-related casualties is used by the vessel operator? How
should the Coast Guard consider the potential ``hassle factor''
associated with using each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?
7. If a vessel or engine currently does not have any measures to
reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties installed, what are the installation costs, separated out
into parts and labor categories, for each such measure?
8. What is the average lifespan of each measure used to reduce or
eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?
9. What are the associated maintenance and replacement costs of
[[Page 53368]]
each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and
CO poisoning-related casualties?
10. What is the recommended replacement schedule of each measure
used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-
related casualties? How often are pieces of equipment replaced? What is
the average cost of replacement per piece of equipment? What is the
average cost of purchasing any required spare equipment?
11. How would individual measures change boater preference for
different measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related
and CO poisoning-related casualties? Would boaters choose more
expensive systems over standard systems? If so, why?
12. What is the risk of unintended activations of each measure used
to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-
related casualties? What is the current estimated rate of unintended
activations? What are the impacts of unintended activations? Are there
any injuries or fatalities associated with unintended activations?
13. What is the risk of each measure used to reduce or eliminate
propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties (i.e.,
engine does not cut off when interlock device is engaged)? What is the
current estimated rate of device failures? What are the impacts of
device failures? Are there any injuries or fatalities associated with
such device failures?
14. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate
compliance rates for measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? What data exists to
estimate how compliance will change from initial phase-in to full
implementation of possible mandatory measures?
15. How would the Coast Guard or other law enforcement officers
enforce required measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-
related and CO poisoning-related casualties? What would be the
challenges with such enforcement? What would be the training costs and
other impacts on law enforcement agencies of implementing measures used
to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-
related casualties?
16. Would any of the different measures designed to reduce or
eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities? What sources of data or information exist detailing the
economic impact on small entities which may result from the use of
measures to avoid propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties?
17. What are the compliance rates with State laws intended prevent
propeller strike-related casualties for recreational boaters?
18. What are the compliance rates with State laws intended to
prevent CO poisoning-related casualties for recreational boaters?
19. What is the voluntary use rate of measures designed to reduce
or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties in States without such laws?
20. Five States (California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon and
Pennsylvania) currently require measures to reduce or prevent propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties. What other State
laws or regulations are being developed with measures to reduce or
prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?
Please provide any data or information from the implementation or
development of these State regulations to assist the Coast Guard as it
considers whether to require measures to reduce or eliminate propeller
strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties.
21. What are the costs associated with implementation of the
aforementioned State laws?
B. Specific Measures To Address Propeller Strike-Related and CO
Poisoning-Related Casualties
1. A possible requirement that operators of recreational vessels
turn off the recreational vessel's engine while persons are in the
water in close proximity to the rear of the vessel. If an operator
turned off a vessel's engine, persons in the water behind the vessel
would not come into contact with a spinning propeller or inhale CO
emitted from a running engine. ``Close proximity'' would be defined as
when a person is either touching any part of the vessel or is close
enough to touch any part of the vessel.
2. A possible requirement to use longer boarding ladders on new
recreational vessels. A longer boarding ladder than what is currently
used on most recreational vessels would make it less likely that the
person boarding the vessel would use the lower unit in order to reach
the ladder. As discussed above, if the propeller is spinning while a
person is attempting to use the lower unit as a step, the person may
either step directly onto the spinning propeller or slip off the lower
unit of the propulsion system and fall onto the spinning propeller
resulting in severe injuries and possibly death.
3. A possible requirement to use boarding ladder or swim platform
entrance gate ``interlocks'' on new recreational vessels. Ladder or
swim platform entrance gate ``interlocks'' would prevent a recreational
vessel engine from starting if the boarding ladder was deployed or the
swim platform entrance gate was not closed, thus preventing a person
using a boarding ladder or swim platform from coming into contact with
a spinning propeller.
C. Specific Information Sought
When responding to the questions below, please explain the
reasoning behind your comment and provide data sources and citations.
1. We seek comments on measure number 1 described above that would
require operators of recreational vessels to turn off the recreational
vessel's engine while persons are in the water in close proximity to
the rear of the vessel. We also seek comments regarding the potential
meaning of ``close proximity'' for this proposal and whether there
should be exemptions to any such proposed requirement to turn the
vessel off. Should such a proposal closely mirror the State laws
discussed above?
2. Are there scenarios, other than a person in the water in close
proximity to the rear of the vessel, in which turning off the vessel's
engine would similarly protect recreational boaters?
3. Would there be any adverse impacts to recreational vessels,
recreational boaters, or the recreational boating experience by turning
off the vessel's engine when a person is in the water in close
proximity to the rear of the vessel or in other similar scenarios?
4. How should the Coast Guard consider the potential ``hassle
factor'' associated with turning off the vessel's engine when a person
is in the water in close proximity to the vessel?
5. What is the average number of times per trip a recreational
vessel's engine would have to be turned off because of a person in
close proximity to the vessel?
6. How effective would measure number 1 be in preventing accidents
related to both propeller strikes and CO poisoning?
7. How would the challenge to visually inspect at a distance
whether a person is in close proximity to a vessel affect compliance
with any turn-the-vessel-off requirements?
8. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate
compliance rates of measure number 1? What data
[[Page 53369]]
exists to estimate how such compliance will change during full
implementation?
9. We seek comments on measure number 2 described above to require
use of longer reboarding ladders. We understand that the American Boat
and Yacht Council (ABYC) has a proposed revision to ABYC Standard H-
41--Reboarding Means, Ladders, Handholds, Rails, and Lifelines, that
would address longer ladders. Are there other consensus industry
standards addressing longer ladders?
10. What percentage of new recreational vessels are sold with a
swim ladder installed? What percentage of existing recreational vessels
currently have a swim ladder installed? What is the typical length of a
swim ladder that recreational vessel manufacturers currently install?
11. What are the costs for installation of a reboarding ladder?
12. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate
compliance rates of measure number 2? What data exists to estimate how
such compliance will change during full implementation?
13. We seek comments on measure number 3 described above to require
use of boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate ``interlocks'' on
new recreational vessels. Are there any consensus industry standards
addressing interlocks or any such standards in development?
14. What are the costs for installation of a boarding ladder or
swim platform entrance gate interlock system? What are the costs
associated with maintenance of these systems?
15. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate
compliance rates of measure number 3? What data exists to estimate how
such compliance will change during full implementation?
16. What is the risk of device failures or unintended activations
of the boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate interlocks? What
is the current estimated rate of unintended activations? What are the
impacts of unintended activations? Are there any injuries or fatalities
associated with unintended activations?
17. What other measures or strategies would prevent propeller
strike-related or CO poisoning-related casualties?
18. Since the enactment of the aforementioned State laws (CA, NV,
OR, PA, WA), has there been a change in the count and rate of CO
poisoning-related casualties in these States? Is there any quantitative
data, measures, metrics, studies, or other related evidence on the
effectiveness of these State laws?
19. Should any of the above-listed measures, or other measures or
strategies to prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties, be limited to specific recreational vessel types or
lengths, or to some other criteria?
20. Would any of the above-listed specific measures have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?
What sources of data or information exist detailing the economic impact
on small entities which may result from the use of these specific
measures to avoid propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related
casualties?
Dated: August 8, 2011.
James A. Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-21866 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P