Federal Requirements for Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures, 59064-59065 [E7-20604]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
• Coast Guard

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59064-59065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20604]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 The rulemaking is being withdrawn 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December 10, 2001, is withdrawn on October 18, 2007.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 
https://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