Installation and Use of Engine Cut-off Switches on Recreational Vessels, 33161-33166 [2011-14140]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
33 CFR Parts 175 and 183
telephone 202–372–1061,
e-mail Jeffrey.A.Ludwig@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0206]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 1625–AB34
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
IV. Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Discussion
V. Information Requested
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Installation and Use of Engine Cut-off
Switches on Recreational Vessels
Coast Guard, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard seeks public
input on whether changes are needed to
the regulations covering standard safety
features on certain recreational vessels.
Specifically, the Coast Guard is seeking
comment on whether it should require
engine cut-off switches as a standard
safety feature on propulsion machinery
and/or starting controls installed on
recreational vessels less than 26 feet in
length, and whether it should require
operators of these recreational vessels to
use engine cut-off switches. Comments
should address the public safety aspects
of the new requirements, as well as the
cost implications and regulatory burden.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before September 6, 2011 or reach
the Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2009–0206 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions on this advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Coast Guard;
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 https://
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–2009–0206),
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 phone
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
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2009–0206’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search,’’ then click on the
balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8c by 11
inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33161
B. Viewing comments and documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box, insert ‘‘USCG–2009–
0206’’ 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. But you may submit a request
for one 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 one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
ABYC American Boat and Yacht Council
BARD (Coast Guard) Boating Accident
Report Database
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory
Council
NMMA National Marine Manufacturers
Association
PWC Personal Watercraft
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Background
In a recent 5-year period,
approximately 82.1 million people
annually participated in recreational
boating as an outdoor recreation activity
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33162
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 or a propeller. 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
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.
Since the mid-1990s, the Coast Guard
has investigated the appropriate course
of action to address the recreational
vessel and propeller strike-related
casualty issue, trying to understand the
causes of these casualties and determine
the best way to prevent them. The Coast
Guard has solicited requests for
comments on various proposals to
reduce recreational vessel and propeller
strike-related casualties, and proposed
and withdrawn two separate
rulemakings to address 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 strikerelated casualties. See 60 FR 25191
(May 11, 1995) (Request for comments),
61 FR 13123 (March 26, 1996) (Advance
notice of proposed rulemaking), 62 FR
22991 (April 28, 1997) (Request for
comments). The Coast Guard withdrew
this rulemaking because it lacked
sufficient data for the proposals at that
time. See 66 FR 63650 (December 10,
2001) (Notice of Withdrawal).
At the same time the Coast Guard
withdrew the first rulemaking, it
initiated the second rulemaking
focusing on propeller injury mitigation
devices commonly referred to as
‘‘propeller guards.’’ The notice of
proposed rulemaking proposed
requiring owners of certain recreational
houseboats to install a propeller guard
or use all of the following propeller
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 https://
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
injury avoidance measures: a swim
ladder interlock, an aft visibility device,
and an engine cut-off switch. 66 FR
63645 (December 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. 72 FR 59064
(October 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. 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. (NBSAC Resolution
# 2005–76–04.) The working group
developed 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 of
the vessel. The NBSAC endorsed these
recommendations and forwarded them
to the Coast Guard for further
consideration. (NBSAC Resolution Nos.
2006–77–01, 2006–77–02, 2006–77–03,
and 2006–77–04, found in the docket for
this rulemaking.)
To address the second and third
recommendations involving the
installation, maintenance, and use of
engine cut-off switches,2 the Coast
Guard analyzed 5 years of recreational
vessel accident report data to identify
casualties that may have been prevented
if the recreational vessel operators had
used an engine cut-off switch. The
results of this analysis are found in
‘‘Casualties Preventable by Use of an
Engine Cut-off Switch’’ (the Report, also
placed in the docket for this
rulemaking).3 Staff members from the
Boating Safety Division of the Coast
2 In response to the first recommendation, the
Coast Guard developed a rental education kit,
which is now available to vessel liveries. The Coast
Guard is still considering the fourth
recommendation.
3 The Report is available in the docket where
indicated under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section of this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Guard’s Office of Auxiliary and Boating
Safety and two civilian boating accident
investigation experts (collectively, the
reviewers) examined records drawn
from the Coast Guard’s Boating
Accident Report Database (BARD) of
recreational vessel accidents that
occurred from 2002 through 2006.
The reviewers examined the narrative
section of the accident reports for those
accidents that they determined would
‘‘likely have been prevented’’ and found
that a common cause of the casualties
was the operator being absent from the
helm because of an accidental ejection
or a fall overboard. Id. Appendix B—
Accident Descriptions for Preventable
Deaths and Injuries. An operator may be
ejected or fall overboard from the
recreational vessel if, for example, the
vessel hits a large wake, turns too
sharply, or collides with another vessel
or object in the water. When this
happens, the recreational vessel will
typically continue to operate, usually
moving in circles, until it runs out of
fuel, runs aground, collides with
another object, or is disabled. Because a
recreational vessel normally maintains
the speed at which it is operating when
the operator is ejected or falls
overboard, or when the controls are
otherwise unattended, it is often
difficult for any persons ejected from
the vessel or already in the water to
swim out of the vessel’s path, which
may lead to one or more persons being
struck by the vessel, a propeller, or a
lower unit of the outboard or sterndrive.
A ‘‘runaway’’ recreational vessel may
also cause damage by striking vessels or
other property.
The Coast Guard seeks comment on
this list of accidents; specifically,
whether casualties likely would have
been prevented by the use of engine cutoff switches and whether there are
additional accidents that should be
included on the list.
To increase maritime domain safety
and reduce and prevent recreational
vessel and propeller strike-related
casualties, the Coast Guard seeks data
and information to inform its decision
on whether it should require engine cutoff switch installation and use on these
vessels. Although many, if not most,
propulsion machinery and/or starting
controls installed on recreational vessels
are currently equipped with an engine
cut-off switch, the Report’s accident
report narratives, contained in Report
Appendices D and E, state that the
recreational vessels involved in the
accidents continued to move without an
operator.
The Coast Guard developed this
notice after considering both the human
factors and equipment failures that
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
cause recreational vessel accidents. As
required under 46 U.S.C. 4302(c), the
Coast Guard consulted with the NBSAC;
considered the need for regulations and
the extent to which regulations will
contribute to recreational vessel safety,
and the relevant available recreational
vessel safety standards, statistics, and
data, including public and private
research, development, testing, and
evaluation. We believe that requiring
engine cut-off switch use would address
identified causes of recreational vessel
and propeller strike-related casualties
and support the Coast Guard’s goal of
improving maritime domain safety for
all recreational boaters and others in
and around our navigable waterways.
The Coast Guard would like input from
the public on the appropriateness of
new regulations, and on other issues
related to preventing boating casualties
caused by persons being struck by a
recreational vessel or propeller when
the operator is separated from the
operating controls.
IV. Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Discussion
The Coast Guard seeks input from the
public on whether it should add two
new subparts to its boating safety
regulations: (1) A new subpart E in 33
CFR part 175 would require the
maintenance and use of engine cut-off
switches, and (2) a new subpart N in 33
CFR part 183 would require the
installation of engine cut-off switches.
The Coast Guard is considering
requirements in subpart E that would
cover only those recreational vessels
that are less than 26 feet in length and
are equipped with an engine cut-off
switch. Because the Coast Guard does
not distinguish PWC (e.g., Sea-Doo®,
AquaTrax®, JET SKI®, WaveRunner®)
from other recreational vessels, this
subpart would cover PWC that meet the
length and equipment criteria. The
Coast Guard is also considering a new
subpart N that would cover propulsion
machinery capable of developing static
thrust of 115 pounds, approximately 3
horsepower or more, and associated
starting controls manufactured for
recreational vessels that are less than 26
feet in length, including PWC.
Engine cut-off switch use and
maintenance would be required only for
recreational vessels less than 26 feet in
length, and engine cut-off switch
installation would apply only to the
associated equipment on those
recreational vessels because these types
of vessels are the most common type of
recreational vessel and the type of
recreational vessel on which the
majority of recreational vessel or
propeller strike-related accidents
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
occurred from 2002 through 2006. From
2002 through 2006, 82 percent of all
reported recreational vessel and
propeller strike-related accidents in
BARD involved motorized recreational
vessels less than 26 feet in length. To
determine whether vessel length should
be a factor in the analysis in the Report
that initiated this rulemaking, the Coast
Guard reviewed this data set from BARD
and determined that most of the
previously reported recreational vessel
and propeller strike-related casualties
occurred on recreational vessels less
than 26 feet in length.
Recreational vessels are registered
based on length, and recreational
vessels that are less than 26 feet in
length account for approximately 95
percent of all motorized recreational
vessels covering two registration
categories: (1) Recreational vessels
under 16 feet in length, and (2)
recreational vessels 16 feet to less than
26 feet in length.4 A recreational
vessel’s registration category is recorded
in boating accident reports and
subsequently captured in BARD. See
generally, ‘‘Casualties Preventable by
Use of an Engine Cut-off Switch’’
(analyzing data involving recreational
vessels less than 26 feet in length only).
Engine cut-off switch installation
requirements would apply only to
propulsion machinery capable of
developing at least 115 pounds of static
thrust, and associated starting controls,
because this type of machinery is
already subject to Coast Guard safety
regulations and is likely to already
satisfy the proposed requirement. The
start-in-gear safety regulations in 33 CFR
part 183, subpart L, apply to propulsion
machinery capable of developing at
least 115 pounds of static thrust; this is
the only existing safety requirement that
applies to propulsion machinery.
Additionally, based on industry
information, the Coast Guard estimates
that the majority of manufacturers
already provide engine cut-off switches
for this type of machinery.
A. Engine Cut-off Switch Use and
Maintenance
The Coast Guard believes it would be
necessary to add definitions that
describe the terms ‘‘engine cut-off
switch link,’’ ‘‘engine cut-off switch,’’
‘‘person,’’ ‘‘propulsion machinery,’’
‘‘starting control,’’ and ‘‘static thrust.’’ An
4 U.S. Coast Guard, Recreational Boating
Statistics 2008, COMDTPUB P16754.21, p. 62,
available at https://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/
Publications/Boating_Statistics_2008.pdf. (Table 37
shows that of 11,841,281 mechanically propelled
registered vessels in 2008, 11,257,369 were less
than 26 feet in length (4,989,889 ‘‘under 16 feet;’’
6,267,480 ‘‘16 to less than 26 feet’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33163
engine cut-off switch is typically a
mechanical or electronic device that is
connected to the propulsion machinery
that will stop the propulsion machinery
if the switch is not properly connected,
or the switch components are
submerged in water or separated from
the switch by a predetermined distance.
The Coast Guard is considering defining
an engine cut-off switch as the piece of
equipment that turns the propulsion
machinery off, and an engine cut-off
switch link as the equipment that is
attached to the recreational vessel
operator and activates the engine cut-off
switch. These proposed definitions
would cover current mechanical and
electronic wireless devices, as well as
new technological developments in
engine cut-off switch and link design
after the effective date of any final rule
resulting from this rulemaking. Under a
new subpart N in 33 CFR part 183, those
new technological developments would
have to be consistent with a consensus
industry standard.
The Coast Guard is considering, in a
new subpart E, requiring recreational
vessel operators to attach an engine cutoff switch link for any installed engine
cut-off switch to their person, clothing,
or life jacket (if worn) when operating
a recreational vessel less than 26 feet in
length. This requirement, however,
would not apply while operators are
docking or trailering their recreational
vessels. The Coast Guard seeks
comments on whether other situations,
such as emergencies, should also be
excepted from proposed subpart E, and
how best to define or describe such
situations.
The Coast Guard is considering
requiring recreational vessel owners to
maintain any installed engine cut-off
switch and engine cut-off switch link so
they function properly while the
vessel’s propulsion machinery is in
gear. The Coast Guard is considering
prohibiting anyone from operating a
recreational vessel if the engine cut-off
switch has been disabled or removed, or
does not function properly.
The Coast Guard is also considering
enforcement measures to increase the
use of engine cut-off switches. To that
end, the Coast Guard is considering
whether to make persons who fail to
comply with the engine cut-off switch
use and maintenance requirements
subject to the civil penalties in 46 U.S.C.
4311(c). Section 4311(c) of 46 U.S.C.
sets forth a civil penalty not to exceed
$1,000 for violating provisions of 46
U.S.C. Chapter 43 (Recreational Vessels)
or any regulations prescribed under
Chapter 43, which would include
proposed subpart E. If a violation under
46 U.S.C. 4311(c) involves the operation
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33164
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
of a recreational vessel, the vessel is also
liable in rem for the penalty and could
be seized by the Coast Guard.
B. Engine Cut-off Switch Installation
The Coast Guard is considering
requiring new propulsion machinery
capable of developing 115 pounds of
static thrust or more, or the associated
starting controls, to be equipped with an
engine cut-off switch and link. All
covered newly manufactured, locally
operated (‘‘tiller’’) outboards would be
required to have an engine cut-off
switch and link on the outboard. All
covered newly manufactured, remotely
operated outboard motors, inboard
engines, and sterndrive engines would
have to be equipped with starting
controls containing an engine cut-off
switch and link. If the Coast Guard
adopts the installation requirement, the
switch and link would have to comply
with a consensus industry standard,
American Boat & Yacht Council, Inc.
(ABYC) A–33, Emergency Engine/
Propulsion Cut-Off Devices (2009),
which the Coast Guard would
incorporate by reference into
regulations. The Coast Guard is
considering excluding starting controls
installed inside a wheelhouse, cabin, or
other permanent enclosure on a
recreational vessel because there is a
lesser likelihood of an operator being
ejected or falling overboard from an
enclosed space. The Coast Guard seeks
comment on this exemption and on
whether other groups of vessels should
be exempted from engine cut-off switch
installation.
The Coast Guard would like input
from the public on how to phase-in any
installation requirements. The Coast
Guard is considering designating ‘‘new’’
propulsion machinery and starting
controls as any such machinery or
controls manufactured on or after
January 1 of the second year following
the year of the effective date of any final
rule resulting from this rulemaking. For
example, if a final rule became effective
in January or December of 2012,
manufacturers of propulsion machinery
and starting controls would be required
to comply with the rule by January 1,
2014. We seek comments on whether
this 12–24 month implementation
period would provide sufficient time to
implement these proposed
requirements.
The Coast Guard is also considering
requiring manufacturers, distributors,
and dealers installing new propulsion
machinery and associated starting
controls on a recreational vessel less
than 26 feet in length to ensure that the
propulsion machinery or starting
control is equipped with an engine cut-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
off switch and link that complies with
a consensus industry standard
incorporated by reference into the
regulations. The Coast Guard is
considering covering under the
requirements installations by
manufacturers, distributors, and dealers
on new recreational vessels as well as
existing recreational vessels. While the
Coast Guard is considering covering any
propulsion machinery and starting
control replacements made by
manufacturers, distributors, and dealers
on existing boats, the Coast Guard is
considering not requiring such
replacements or any retrofitting of
existing propulsion machinery and
starting controls.
The Coast Guard is considering
delaying the installation requirement so
that it does not apply until July 1 of the
second year following the year of the
effective date of any final rule resulting
from this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
seeks comment on whether this 6-month
delay, from the date that manufacturers
would be required to provide engine
cut-off switches on propulsion
machinery or starting controls, would
provide enough time for manufacturers,
distributors, and dealers to have
compliant propulsion machinery and
starting controls for installation.5
The Coast Guard is considering
including definitions for the terms
‘‘engine cut-off switch link,’’ ‘‘engine cutoff switch,’’ ‘‘person,’’ ‘‘propulsion
machinery,’’ ‘‘starting control,’’ and
‘‘static thrust.’’ These potential
definitions would also apply to engine
cut-off switch use and maintenance
requirements. The Coast Guard is also
considering including definitions for the
terms ‘‘dealer,’’ ‘‘distributor,’’ and
‘‘manufacturer,’’ which would be
adopted from 33 CFR 183.705.
5 The Coast Guard must provide at least 180 days
between publication of the final rule and the
effective date of the final rule. See 46 U.S.C.
4302(b). For any final rule involving ‘‘major product
design, retooling, or major changes in the
manufacturing process,’’ the Coast Guard must make
the rule effective within 24 months or less. Id. The
Coast Guard does not consider proposed subpart N
to involve a ‘‘major product design, retooling, or
major changes in the manufacturing process’’
because the proposed requirement for propulsion
machinery involves minor engineering adjustments
to add engine cut-off switch capability to any
currently manufactured propulsion machinery not
equipped with this capability, and the installation
requirements do not affect product design,
retooling, or the manufacturing process. Therefore,
only the 180-day delayed effective date statutory
requirement applies to this rulemaking, and the 12–
24 month implementation period for the proposed
requirement that manufacturer provide engine cutoff switches on propulsion machinery and starting
controls, and the 18–30 month implementation
period (in order to include a 6-month delay,
discussed in the text) for the proposed requirement
covering installations, would satisfy this statutory
requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
In order to bolster the importance and
deterrent effect of the regulations in 33
CFR part 183, thereby preventing
maritime deaths and injuries, the Coast
Guard is considering making any person
who fails to comply with engine cut-off
switch use and maintenance
requirements subject to civil (and
possibly criminal) penalties under 46
U.S.C. 4311. In addition to the civil
penalties under § 4311(c) discussed in
relation to engine cut-off switch use and
maintenance requirements, § 4311(b)(1)
sets forth a civil penalty not to exceed
$5,000 for violating 46 U.S.C. 4307(a),
which prohibits a person from
manufacturing, constructing,
assembling, selling, or offering for sale,
a recreational vessel, associated
equipment, or a component of either,
unless it conforms to 46 U.S.C. Chapter
43 (Recreational Vessels) or any
regulations prescribed under Chapter
43, which currently includes all
regulations in 33 CFR part 183 and
would also include installation
requirements. Because the penalties in
46 U.S.C. 4311 currently apply to
violations of any requirement in 33 CFR
part 183, and would apply to violations
of proposed installation requirements if
made final, the Coast Guard is
considering whether to add explicit
language to its regulations incorporating
these penalties. The Coast Guard is
considering adding references to these
statutory penalty provisions for clarity
and to ensure that anyone reading Coast
Guard regulations in part 183
understands that there are specific
penalties, explicitly provided for by
statute, for violating any regulation in
part 183. Adding the reference to the
statutory penalty provisions into the
regulations would not create any new
penalties.
C. Preemption
The engine cut-off switch
requirements discussed here would
preempt those State laws on waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States that are not identical to any final
rule resulting from this rulemaking, and
would create a national standard for
engine cut-off switch installation and
use. Currently, five States (Alabama,6
6 Ala. Code 1975 § 33–5–72(a) (2009) (‘‘It shall be
unlawful on the waters of this state for any person
to operate, or give permission to another person to
operate, any vessel less than 24 feet in length
having an open construction and having more than
50 horsepower, unless the vessel is equipped with
an emergency engine or motor shut-off switch.’’).
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Arkansas,7 Louisiana,8 Illinois,9 and
Nevada10) have already enacted their
own requirements for recreational vessel
operators to use engine cut-off switches,
and 46 States11 have enacted engine cutoff switch requirements for personal
watercraft (PWC) only.
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 4306, Federal
regulations establishing minimum safety
standards for recreational vessels and
associated equipment and establishing
procedures and tests required to
measure conformance with those
standards preempt State law, unless the
State law is identical to a Federal
regulation or a State is specifically
provided an exemption to those
regulations or permitted to regulate
marine safety articles carried or used to
address a hazardous condition or
circumstance unique to that State.
Because of this express preemption,
States may not establish, continue in
effect, or enforce any law or regulation
addressing engine cut-off switch
requirements that is not identical to any
7 A.C.A. § 27–101–203(e)(1)(A) (2009) (‘‘No person
shall operate a motorboat equipped by the
manufacturer with a lanyard-type engine cut-off
switch while the engine is used to propel the boat
without attaching the lanyard to the operator, the
operator’s clothing, or, if the operator is wearing a
personal flotation device, to the device as
appropriate for the specific vessel’’).
8 LAC 76:XI.111.C (2009) (‘‘No person shall
operate a Class A or Class One motorboat with a
hand tiller outboard motor in excess of ten
horsepower designed to have or having an engine
cut-off switch, while the engine is running and the
motorboat is underway, unless the engine cut-off
switch is fully functional and in operable condition;
and the engine cut-off switch link is attached to the
operator, the operator’s clothing, or if worn, the
operator’s personal flotation device’’).
9 625 ILSC 45/4–11 (2009) (‘‘No person may
operate any motor boat, including personal
watercraft or specialty prop-craft, which is
equipped with a lanyard type engine cut-off switch
unless such lanyard is properly attached to his or
her person, clothing or worn PFD, as appropriate for
the specific vessel.’’)
10 N.R.S. 488.585.1 (2009) (‘‘A person who owns
or controls a motorboat that is equipped with an
engine cut-off switch shall not operate or authorize
another person to operate the motorboat at a rate
of speed greater than 5 nautical miles per hour if
the engine cut-off switch or engine cut-off switch
link is missing, disconnected or not operating
properly’’).
11 See National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators Reference Guide to State Boating
Laws available at https://www.nasbla.net/
referenceguide/index.php?queryID=4.8. Some
States require use of a cut-off device if the device
is present. See e.g., Arizona Revised Statues § 5–
350.B (‘‘A person who operates a personal
watercraft that is equipped by the manufacturer
with a lanyard type engine cut-off switch shall
attach the lanyard to his body, clothing or personal
flotation device as appropriate for the specific
watercraft’’). Others States require personal
watercraft to have either a cut-off device or selfcircling device. See e.g., 23 Delaware Code
§ 2212(d) (‘‘No person shall operate a personal
watercraft unless the personal watercraft is
equipped with a self-circling device or a lanyardtype engine cut-off switch * * *).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
final rule resulting from this
rulemaking. The Coast Guard seeks
comments, specifically from States,
regarding this proposal’s preemption of
State laws.
V. Information Requested
The Coast Guard requests comments
on engine cut-off switch devices and
other information that would assist us
with this proposal. We have provided
the following list of specific questions to
guide commenters in providing input
that will assist us with developing this
proposal. Please support your input
with quantitative data where possible
and include sources and complete
citations for any quantitative data.
1. Recreational boating accidents can
cause a variety of negative impacts,
including loss of life, injuries, and
property damage. As described above
and based on the report ‘‘Casualties
Preventable by Use of an Engine Cut-off
Switch,’’ a causal factor in recreational
vessel and propeller strike-related
casualties is the recreational vessel
operator being separated from the helm
because of an accidental ejection or a
fall overboard. Data from this report
suggests that the use of an engine cutoff switch would reduce the risk of
boating casualties caused by persons
being struck by a recreational vessel or
propeller when the operator is separated
from the helm. In addition to this
information, are there other sources of
data or information detailing benefits or
avoided damages which may result from
the use of engine cut-off switches?
2. What vessel types should be
considered for mandatory engine cut-off
switch requirements (e.g., all motor
vessels, motor vessels with hand-tiller
motors, PWCs, houseboats)?
3. What vessel lengths should not be
considered for mandatory engine cut-off
switch requirements (e.g., motor vessels
greater than 26 feet in length)?
4. What engine power (‘‘horsepower ’’) measures should be considered
for mandatory engine cut-off switch
requirements (e.g., engines greater than
3 horsepower)?
5. What other engine or vessel
features should the Coast Guard
consider to determine the boating
population that should be covered by
engine cut-off switch requirements?
6. Based on information provided by
the National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA), manufacturers
have been routinely installing engine
cut-off switches on engines or their
associated starting controls.12 What data
12 According to National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA), ‘‘for more than ten years,
many of the motorboats on the market have been
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33165
exists to estimate the percentage of
recreational vessels and engines that
have engine cut-off switches provided
as standard equipment?
7. How many and what types of
recreational vessels or engines do not
have engine cut-off switches provided
as standard equipment (e.g., boats
constructed by owner)?
8. According to a report by the
Outdoor Foundation in partnership with
the Recreational Boating and Fishing
Foundation, one measure of the number
of outings or trips for non-commercial
recreational vessels is 15 per year for
powerboat users.13 Are there any
additional sources documenting the
number of trips for recreational vessels
or recreational vessel use rates by vessel
types?
9. Similarly, are there any sources
documenting the average number of
trips commercial operators of
recreational vessels make in a year?
10. What is the average number of
times an engine cut-off switch lanyard
or device would be attached and
detached in a trip by the vessel
operator?
11. What is the average amount of
time it would take for a vessel operator
to attach or detach the lanyard?
12. How would operators and
passengers be impacted by the number
of times an engine cut-off switch is
attached and detached by the vessel
operator? How should the Coast Guard
consider the potential ‘‘hassle factor’’
associated with using an engine cut-off
switch?
13. If a vessel or engine currently does
not have an engine cut-off switch
installed, what are the installation costs,
separated out into parts and labor
categories?
14. What is the average lifespan of an
engine cut-off switch?
15. What are the associated
maintenance and replacement costs of
engine cut-off switch devices?
16. What is the recommended lanyard
replacement schedule? How often are
lanyards replaced? What is the average
cost of the lanyard replacement? When
operating a recreational vessel equipped
with an engine cut-off switch, does the
operator purchase and maintain a spare
lanyard?
17. How many boaters use wireless
engine cut-off switch devices? What
percentage of total cut-off switch use
equipped with engine cut-off switches’’. (Press
release, April 10, 2006: https://www.nmma.org/
news/news.asp?id=12346&sid=43)
13 The Outdoor Foundation in partnership with
the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation,
‘‘A Special Report on Fishing and Boating’’, 2009,
page 36 (see https://www.outdoorfoundation.org/
research.fishing.html).
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33166
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
does this represent? What percentage of
these wireless devices are standard
(original) equipment on vessels and
engines? What are the installation and
maintenance costs (labor and
equipment) of wireless devices? What is
the expected lifespan of wireless
devices? Are there any special
performance or failure issues unique to
wireless devices?
18. How would this proposal change
boater preference for wireless engine
cut-off switch devices? Would boaters
choose more expensive wireless systems
over standard non-wireless systems? If
so, why and how many?
19. As a result of this proposal, would
vessel and engine manufacturers adopt
wireless technology as standard
equipment?
20. Would this proposal increase the
use and wear of engine cut-off switch
devices over and above the
manufacturer’s recommended use?
Would this proposal increase the
replacement costs of engine cut-off
switch devices?
21. What is the risk of unintended
activations of engine cut-off switch
devices? 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?
22. What is the risk of engine cut-off
switch device failure (i.e., engine does
not cut off when operator is ejected)?
What is the current estimated rate of
engine cut-off switch device failures?
What are the impacts of engine cut-off
switch device failures? Are there any
injuries or fatalities associated with
engine cut-off switch device failures?
23. What data or information exists
that could be used to estimate
compliance rates of this proposal? What
data exists to estimate how compliance
with proposal will change from initial
phase-in to full implementation?
24. How would the challenge to
visually inspect from a distance whether
an engine cut-off switch device is being
used affect compliance with engine cutoff switch device requirements?
25. What are the compliance rates
with State laws that require use of
engine cut-off switch devices?
26. What is the voluntary use rate of
engine cut-off switch devices in States
without engine cut-off switch device
laws?
27. Five States (Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Louisiana, and Nevada)
currently require boaters to use engine
cut-off devices on certain recreational
vessels. What other State laws are being
developed for engine cut-off switch
device regulations? Please provide any
data or information from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:41 Jun 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
implementation or development of these
State regulations to assist the Coast
Guard as it considers whether to require
engine cut-off switch device use.
28. What are the costs associated with
implementation of State laws requiring
mandatory use of engine cut-off switch
devices?
29. What is the effectiveness based on
the reduction in fatalities, injuries, and
property damage from recent changes in
State laws regarding the use of engine
cut-off switch devices?
Dated: June 2, 2011.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–14140 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 211, 246, and 252
RIN 0750–AG74
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS);
Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items,
DFARS Case 2009–D018
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule to
amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
implement a policy memorandum of the
Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
dated February 6, 2007, which required
definition of the requirements to track
warranties for Item Unique
Identification-required items in the DoD
Item Unique Identification Registry.
This final rule stresses that the
enforcement of warranties is essential to
the effectiveness and efficiency of DoD’s
material readiness.
DATES: Effective date: June 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Julian Thrash, 703–602–0310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
The Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
issued a policy memorandum dated
February 6, 2007, which instructed the
Director of Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy to define the
requirements to track warranties for
Item Unique Identification-required
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
items in the DoD Item Unique
Identification Registry. The capability to
track warranties will significantly
enhance the ability of DoD to—
• Identify and enforce warranties;
• Ensure sufficient durations of
warranties for specific goods; and
• Realize improved material
readiness.
DoD issued a proposed rule in the
Federal Register at 75 FR 52917 on
August 30, 2010, to address the
requirement to more effectively track
warranties for Item Unique
Identification items. The comment
period closed October 29, 2010.
II. Public Comment
One respondent submitted comments
to the proposed rule, which are
discussed below.
Comment: The respondent states that
while the unique item identification
requirement was not established for the
purpose of tracking warranty items, its
use as a warranty-tracking methodology
would result in increased costs for
contractors and the Government. The
addition of warranted items to DFARS
211.274–2 will expand the criteria for
selecting the items to be uniquely
identified. Today, that determination is
based almost completely on the value of
the item. Warranted items may or may
not meet the value criterion established
for determining what should be
uniquely identified and marked. An
application of unique item
identification to warranted items may
cause a part to be covered by unique
item identification under a contract
calling for warranty and not covered by
unique item identification on another
contract without warranty.
Response: This requirement applies to
any ‘‘warranted serialized item,’’ and a
clarifying change was made at 211.274–
2(4)(iii) by adding the term ‘‘any
warranted serialized item.’’
Comment: The respondent also
recommends that DoD not publish a
final rule on warranty tracking of
serialized items.
Response: DoD requires a more
effective way to track warranties for
Item Unique Identification items.
Presently, DoD lacks the enterprise
capability to provide visibility and
accountability of warranty data
associated with acquired goods. The
tracking of warranties, from the
identification of the requirement to the
expiration date of the warranted item,
will significantly enhance the ability of
DoD to take full advantage of warranties
when they are part of an acquisition.
This will result in reduced costs, ability
to recognize benefits, and the ability to
compare performance against
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33161-33166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14140]
[[Page 33161]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 175 and 183
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0206]
RIN 1625-AB34
Installation and Use of Engine Cut-off Switches on Recreational
Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public input on whether changes are
needed to the regulations covering standard safety features on certain
recreational vessels. Specifically, the Coast Guard is seeking comment
on whether it should require engine cut-off switches as a standard
safety feature on propulsion machinery and/or starting controls
installed on recreational vessels less than 26 feet in length, and
whether it should require operators of these recreational vessels to
use engine cut-off switches. Comments should address the public safety
aspects of the new requirements, as well as the cost implications and
regulatory burden.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before September 6,
2011 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0206 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Coast
Guard; telephone 202-372-1061, e-mail Jeffrey.A.Ludwig@uscg.mil. 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
IV. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Discussion
V. Information Requested
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 https://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-2009-0206), 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 phone 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 https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0206'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search,'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 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 https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``USCG-2009-0206'' 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. But you may submit a
request for one 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 one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
ABYC American Boat and Yacht Council
BARD (Coast Guard) Boating Accident Report Database
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Council
NMMA National Marine Manufacturers Association
PWC Personal Watercraft
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Background
In a recent 5-year period, approximately 82.1 million people
annually participated in recreational boating as an outdoor recreation
activity
[[Page 33162]]
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 or a propeller. 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 https://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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the mid-1990s, the Coast Guard has investigated the
appropriate course of action to address the recreational vessel and
propeller strike-related casualty issue, trying to understand the
causes of these casualties and determine the best way to prevent them.
The Coast Guard has solicited requests for comments on various
proposals to reduce recreational vessel and propeller strike-related
casualties, and proposed and withdrawn two separate rulemakings to
address 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 (March 26,
1996) (Advance notice of proposed rulemaking), 62 FR 22991 (April 28,
1997) (Request for comments). The Coast Guard withdrew this rulemaking
because it lacked sufficient data for the proposals at that time. See
66 FR 63650 (December 10, 2001) (Notice of Withdrawal).
At the same time the Coast Guard withdrew the first rulemaking, it
initiated the second rulemaking focusing on propeller injury mitigation
devices commonly referred to as ``propeller guards.'' The notice of
proposed rulemaking proposed requiring owners of certain recreational
houseboats to install a propeller guard or use all of the following
propeller injury avoidance measures: a swim ladder interlock, an aft
visibility device, and an engine cut-off switch. 66 FR 63645 (December
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. 72 FR 59064
(October 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. 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. (NBSAC
Resolution 2005-76-04.) The working group developed 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 of the vessel. The NBSAC endorsed these
recommendations and forwarded them to the Coast Guard for further
consideration. (NBSAC Resolution Nos. 2006-77-01, 2006-77-02, 2006-77-
03, and 2006-77-04, found in the docket for this rulemaking.)
To address the second and third recommendations involving the
installation, maintenance, and use of engine cut-off switches,\2\ the
Coast Guard analyzed 5 years of recreational vessel accident report
data to identify casualties that may have been prevented if the
recreational vessel operators had used an engine cut-off switch. The
results of this analysis are found in ``Casualties Preventable by Use
of an Engine Cut-off Switch'' (the Report, also placed in the docket
for this rulemaking).\3\ Staff members from the Boating Safety Division
of the Coast Guard's Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety and two
civilian boating accident investigation experts (collectively, the
reviewers) examined records drawn from the Coast Guard's Boating
Accident Report Database (BARD) of recreational vessel accidents that
occurred from 2002 through 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In response to the first recommendation, the Coast Guard
developed a rental education kit, which is now available to vessel
liveries. The Coast Guard is still considering the fourth
recommendation.
\3\ The Report is available in the docket where indicated under
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reviewers examined the narrative section of the accident
reports for those accidents that they determined would ``likely have
been prevented'' and found that a common cause of the casualties was
the operator being absent from the helm because of an accidental
ejection or a fall overboard. Id. Appendix B--Accident Descriptions for
Preventable Deaths and Injuries. An operator may be ejected or fall
overboard from the recreational vessel if, for example, the vessel hits
a large wake, turns too sharply, or collides with another vessel or
object in the water. When this happens, the recreational vessel will
typically continue to operate, usually moving in circles, until it runs
out of fuel, runs aground, collides with another object, or is
disabled. Because a recreational vessel normally maintains the speed at
which it is operating when the operator is ejected or falls overboard,
or when the controls are otherwise unattended, it is often difficult
for any persons ejected from the vessel or already in the water to swim
out of the vessel's path, which may lead to one or more persons being
struck by the vessel, a propeller, or a lower unit of the outboard or
sterndrive. A ``runaway'' recreational vessel may also cause damage by
striking vessels or other property.
The Coast Guard seeks comment on this list of accidents;
specifically, whether casualties likely would have been prevented by
the use of engine cut-off switches and whether there are additional
accidents that should be included on the list.
To increase maritime domain safety and reduce and prevent
recreational vessel and propeller strike-related casualties, the Coast
Guard seeks data and information to inform its decision on whether it
should require engine cut-off switch installation and use on these
vessels. Although many, if not most, propulsion machinery and/or
starting controls installed on recreational vessels are currently
equipped with an engine cut-off switch, the Report's accident report
narratives, contained in Report Appendices D and E, state that the
recreational vessels involved in the accidents continued to move
without an operator.
The Coast Guard developed this notice after considering both the
human factors and equipment failures that
[[Page 33163]]
cause recreational vessel accidents. As required under 46 U.S.C.
4302(c), the Coast Guard consulted with the NBSAC; considered the need
for regulations and the extent to which regulations will contribute to
recreational vessel safety, and the relevant available recreational
vessel safety standards, statistics, and data, including public and
private research, development, testing, and evaluation. We believe that
requiring engine cut-off switch use would address identified causes of
recreational vessel and propeller strike-related casualties and support
the Coast Guard's goal of improving maritime domain safety for all
recreational boaters and others in and around our navigable waterways.
The Coast Guard would like input from the public on the appropriateness
of new regulations, and on other issues related to preventing boating
casualties caused by persons being struck by a recreational vessel or
propeller when the operator is separated from the operating controls.
IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Discussion
The Coast Guard seeks input from the public on whether it should
add two new subparts to its boating safety regulations: (1) A new
subpart E in 33 CFR part 175 would require the maintenance and use of
engine cut-off switches, and (2) a new subpart N in 33 CFR part 183
would require the installation of engine cut-off switches. The Coast
Guard is considering requirements in subpart E that would cover only
those recreational vessels that are less than 26 feet in length and are
equipped with an engine cut-off switch. Because the Coast Guard does
not distinguish PWC (e.g., Sea-Doo[reg], AquaTrax[reg], JET SKI[reg],
WaveRunner[reg]) from other recreational vessels, this subpart would
cover PWC that meet the length and equipment criteria. The Coast Guard
is also considering a new subpart N that would cover propulsion
machinery capable of developing static thrust of 115 pounds,
approximately 3 horsepower or more, and associated starting controls
manufactured for recreational vessels that are less than 26 feet in
length, including PWC.
Engine cut-off switch use and maintenance would be required only
for recreational vessels less than 26 feet in length, and engine cut-
off switch installation would apply only to the associated equipment on
those recreational vessels because these types of vessels are the most
common type of recreational vessel and the type of recreational vessel
on which the majority of recreational vessel or propeller strike-
related accidents occurred from 2002 through 2006. From 2002 through
2006, 82 percent of all reported recreational vessel and propeller
strike-related accidents in BARD involved motorized recreational
vessels less than 26 feet in length. To determine whether vessel length
should be a factor in the analysis in the Report that initiated this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard reviewed this data set from BARD and
determined that most of the previously reported recreational vessel and
propeller strike-related casualties occurred on recreational vessels
less than 26 feet in length.
Recreational vessels are registered based on length, and
recreational vessels that are less than 26 feet in length account for
approximately 95 percent of all motorized recreational vessels covering
two registration categories: (1) Recreational vessels under 16 feet in
length, and (2) recreational vessels 16 feet to less than 26 feet in
length.\4\ A recreational vessel's registration category is recorded in
boating accident reports and subsequently captured in BARD. See
generally, ``Casualties Preventable by Use of an Engine Cut-off
Switch'' (analyzing data involving recreational vessels less than 26
feet in length only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Coast Guard, Recreational Boating Statistics 2008,
COMDTPUB P16754.21, p. 62, available at https://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/Publications/Boating_Statistics_2008.pdf. (Table 37 shows
that of 11,841,281 mechanically propelled registered vessels in
2008, 11,257,369 were less than 26 feet in length (4,989,889 ``under
16 feet;'' 6,267,480 ``16 to less than 26 feet'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine cut-off switch installation requirements would apply only to
propulsion machinery capable of developing at least 115 pounds of
static thrust, and associated starting controls, because this type of
machinery is already subject to Coast Guard safety regulations and is
likely to already satisfy the proposed requirement. The start-in-gear
safety regulations in 33 CFR part 183, subpart L, apply to propulsion
machinery capable of developing at least 115 pounds of static thrust;
this is the only existing safety requirement that applies to propulsion
machinery. Additionally, based on industry information, the Coast Guard
estimates that the majority of manufacturers already provide engine
cut-off switches for this type of machinery.
A. Engine Cut-off Switch Use and Maintenance
The Coast Guard believes it would be necessary to add definitions
that describe the terms ``engine cut-off switch link,'' ``engine cut-
off switch,'' ``person,'' ``propulsion machinery,'' ``starting
control,'' and ``static thrust.'' An engine cut-off switch is typically
a mechanical or electronic device that is connected to the propulsion
machinery that will stop the propulsion machinery if the switch is not
properly connected, or the switch components are submerged in water or
separated from the switch by a predetermined distance. The Coast Guard
is considering defining an engine cut-off switch as the piece of
equipment that turns the propulsion machinery off, and an engine cut-
off switch link as the equipment that is attached to the recreational
vessel operator and activates the engine cut-off switch. These proposed
definitions would cover current mechanical and electronic wireless
devices, as well as new technological developments in engine cut-off
switch and link design after the effective date of any final rule
resulting from this rulemaking. Under a new subpart N in 33 CFR part
183, those new technological developments would have to be consistent
with a consensus industry standard.
The Coast Guard is considering, in a new subpart E, requiring
recreational vessel operators to attach an engine cut-off switch link
for any installed engine cut-off switch to their person, clothing, or
life jacket (if worn) when operating a recreational vessel less than 26
feet in length. This requirement, however, would not apply while
operators are docking or trailering their recreational vessels. The
Coast Guard seeks comments on whether other situations, such as
emergencies, should also be excepted from proposed subpart E, and how
best to define or describe such situations.
The Coast Guard is considering requiring recreational vessel owners
to maintain any installed engine cut-off switch and engine cut-off
switch link so they function properly while the vessel's propulsion
machinery is in gear. The Coast Guard is considering prohibiting anyone
from operating a recreational vessel if the engine cut-off switch has
been disabled or removed, or does not function properly.
The Coast Guard is also considering enforcement measures to
increase the use of engine cut-off switches. To that end, the Coast
Guard is considering whether to make persons who fail to comply with
the engine cut-off switch use and maintenance requirements subject to
the civil penalties in 46 U.S.C. 4311(c). Section 4311(c) of 46 U.S.C.
sets forth a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for violating
provisions of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 43 (Recreational Vessels) or any
regulations prescribed under Chapter 43, which would include proposed
subpart E. If a violation under 46 U.S.C. 4311(c) involves the
operation
[[Page 33164]]
of a recreational vessel, the vessel is also liable in rem for the
penalty and could be seized by the Coast Guard.
B. Engine Cut-off Switch Installation
The Coast Guard is considering requiring new propulsion machinery
capable of developing 115 pounds of static thrust or more, or the
associated starting controls, to be equipped with an engine cut-off
switch and link. All covered newly manufactured, locally operated
(``tiller'') outboards would be required to have an engine cut-off
switch and link on the outboard. All covered newly manufactured,
remotely operated outboard motors, inboard engines, and sterndrive
engines would have to be equipped with starting controls containing an
engine cut-off switch and link. If the Coast Guard adopts the
installation requirement, the switch and link would have to comply with
a consensus industry standard, American Boat & Yacht Council, Inc.
(ABYC) A-33, Emergency Engine/Propulsion Cut-Off Devices (2009), which
the Coast Guard would incorporate by reference into regulations. The
Coast Guard is considering excluding starting controls installed inside
a wheelhouse, cabin, or other permanent enclosure on a recreational
vessel because there is a lesser likelihood of an operator being
ejected or falling overboard from an enclosed space. The Coast Guard
seeks comment on this exemption and on whether other groups of vessels
should be exempted from engine cut-off switch installation.
The Coast Guard would like input from the public on how to phase-in
any installation requirements. The Coast Guard is considering
designating ``new'' propulsion machinery and starting controls as any
such machinery or controls manufactured on or after January 1 of the
second year following the year of the effective date of any final rule
resulting from this rulemaking. For example, if a final rule became
effective in January or December of 2012, manufacturers of propulsion
machinery and starting controls would be required to comply with the
rule by January 1, 2014. We seek comments on whether this 12-24 month
implementation period would provide sufficient time to implement these
proposed requirements.
The Coast Guard is also considering requiring manufacturers,
distributors, and dealers installing new propulsion machinery and
associated starting controls on a recreational vessel less than 26 feet
in length to ensure that the propulsion machinery or starting control
is equipped with an engine cut-off switch and link that complies with a
consensus industry standard incorporated by reference into the
regulations. The Coast Guard is considering covering under the
requirements installations by manufacturers, distributors, and dealers
on new recreational vessels as well as existing recreational vessels.
While the Coast Guard is considering covering any propulsion machinery
and starting control replacements made by manufacturers, distributors,
and dealers on existing boats, the Coast Guard is considering not
requiring such replacements or any retrofitting of existing propulsion
machinery and starting controls.
The Coast Guard is considering delaying the installation
requirement so that it does not apply until July 1 of the second year
following the year of the effective date of any final rule resulting
from this rulemaking. The Coast Guard seeks comment on whether this 6-
month delay, from the date that manufacturers would be required to
provide engine cut-off switches on propulsion machinery or starting
controls, would provide enough time for manufacturers, distributors,
and dealers to have compliant propulsion machinery and starting
controls for installation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Coast Guard must provide at least 180 days between
publication of the final rule and the effective date of the final
rule. See 46 U.S.C. 4302(b). For any final rule involving ``major
product design, retooling, or major changes in the manufacturing
process,'' the Coast Guard must make the rule effective within 24
months or less. Id. The Coast Guard does not consider proposed
subpart N to involve a ``major product design, retooling, or major
changes in the manufacturing process'' because the proposed
requirement for propulsion machinery involves minor engineering
adjustments to add engine cut-off switch capability to any currently
manufactured propulsion machinery not equipped with this capability,
and the installation requirements do not affect product design,
retooling, or the manufacturing process. Therefore, only the 180-day
delayed effective date statutory requirement applies to this
rulemaking, and the 12-24 month implementation period for the
proposed requirement that manufacturer provide engine cut-off
switches on propulsion machinery and starting controls, and the 18-
30 month implementation period (in order to include a 6-month delay,
discussed in the text) for the proposed requirement covering
installations, would satisfy this statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is considering including definitions for the terms
``engine cut-off switch link,'' ``engine cut-off switch,'' ``person,''
``propulsion machinery,'' ``starting control,'' and ``static thrust.''
These potential definitions would also apply to engine cut-off switch
use and maintenance requirements. The Coast Guard is also considering
including definitions for the terms ``dealer,'' ``distributor,'' and
``manufacturer,'' which would be adopted from 33 CFR 183.705.
In order to bolster the importance and deterrent effect of the
regulations in 33 CFR part 183, thereby preventing maritime deaths and
injuries, the Coast Guard is considering making any person who fails to
comply with engine cut-off switch use and maintenance requirements
subject to civil (and possibly criminal) penalties under 46 U.S.C.
4311. In addition to the civil penalties under Sec. 4311(c) discussed
in relation to engine cut-off switch use and maintenance requirements,
Sec. 4311(b)(1) sets forth a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for
violating 46 U.S.C. 4307(a), which prohibits a person from
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, selling, or offering for sale,
a recreational vessel, associated equipment, or a component of either,
unless it conforms to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 43 (Recreational Vessels) or
any regulations prescribed under Chapter 43, which currently includes
all regulations in 33 CFR part 183 and would also include installation
requirements. Because the penalties in 46 U.S.C. 4311 currently apply
to violations of any requirement in 33 CFR part 183, and would apply to
violations of proposed installation requirements if made final, the
Coast Guard is considering whether to add explicit language to its
regulations incorporating these penalties. The Coast Guard is
considering adding references to these statutory penalty provisions for
clarity and to ensure that anyone reading Coast Guard regulations in
part 183 understands that there are specific penalties, explicitly
provided for by statute, for violating any regulation in part 183.
Adding the reference to the statutory penalty provisions into the
regulations would not create any new penalties.
C. Preemption
The engine cut-off switch requirements discussed here would preempt
those State laws on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States that are not identical to any final rule resulting from this
rulemaking, and would create a national standard for engine cut-off
switch installation and use. Currently, five States (Alabama,\6\
[[Page 33165]]
Arkansas,\7\ Louisiana,\8\ Illinois,\9\ and Nevada\10\) have already
enacted their own requirements for recreational vessel operators to use
engine cut-off switches, and 46 States\11\ have enacted engine cut-off
switch requirements for personal watercraft (PWC) only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ala. Code 1975 Sec. 33-5-72(a) (2009) (``It shall be
unlawful on the waters of this state for any person to operate, or
give permission to another person to operate, any vessel less than
24 feet in length having an open construction and having more than
50 horsepower, unless the vessel is equipped with an emergency
engine or motor shut-off switch.'').
\7\ A.C.A. Sec. 27-101-203(e)(1)(A) (2009) (``No person shall
operate a motorboat equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard-type
engine cut-off switch while the engine is used to propel the boat
without attaching the lanyard to the operator, the operator's
clothing, or, if the operator is wearing a personal flotation
device, to the device as appropriate for the specific vessel'').
\8\ LAC 76:XI.111.C (2009) (``No person shall operate a Class A
or Class One motorboat with a hand tiller outboard motor in excess
of ten horsepower designed to have or having an engine cut-off
switch, while the engine is running and the motorboat is underway,
unless the engine cut-off switch is fully functional and in operable
condition; and the engine cut-off switch link is attached to the
operator, the operator's clothing, or if worn, the operator's
personal flotation device'').
\9\ 625 ILSC 45/4-11 (2009) (``No person may operate any motor
boat, including personal watercraft or specialty prop-craft, which
is equipped with a lanyard type engine cut-off switch unless such
lanyard is properly attached to his or her person, clothing or worn
PFD, as appropriate for the specific vessel.'')
\10\ N.R.S. 488.585.1 (2009) (``A person who owns or controls a
motorboat that is equipped with an engine cut-off switch shall not
operate or authorize another person to operate the motorboat at a
rate of speed greater than 5 nautical miles per hour if the engine
cut-off switch or engine cut-off switch link is missing,
disconnected or not operating properly'').
\11\ See National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators Reference Guide to State Boating Laws available at
https://www.nasbla.net/referenceguide/index.php?queryID=4.8. Some
States require use of a cut-off device if the device is present. See
e.g., Arizona Revised Statues Sec. 5-350.B (``A person who operates
a personal watercraft that is equipped by the manufacturer with a
lanyard type engine cut-off switch shall attach the lanyard to his
body, clothing or personal flotation device as appropriate for the
specific watercraft''). Others States require personal watercraft to
have either a cut-off device or self-circling device. See e.g., 23
Delaware Code Sec. 2212(d) (``No person shall operate a personal
watercraft unless the personal watercraft is equipped with a self-
circling device or a lanyard-type engine cut-off switch * * *).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 4306, Federal regulations establishing
minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated
equipment and establishing procedures and tests required to measure
conformance with those standards preempt State law, unless the State
law is identical to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically
provided an exemption to those regulations or permitted to regulate
marine safety articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition
or circumstance unique to that State. Because of this express
preemption, States may not establish, continue in effect, or enforce
any law or regulation addressing engine cut-off switch requirements
that is not identical to any final rule resulting from this rulemaking.
The Coast Guard seeks comments, specifically from States, regarding
this proposal's preemption of State laws.
V. Information Requested
The Coast Guard requests comments on engine cut-off switch devices
and other information that would assist us with this proposal. We have
provided the following list of specific questions to guide commenters
in providing input that will assist us with developing this proposal.
Please support your input with quantitative data where possible and
include sources and complete citations for any quantitative data.
1. Recreational boating accidents can cause a variety of negative
impacts, including loss of life, injuries, and property damage. As
described above and based on the report ``Casualties Preventable by Use
of an Engine Cut-off Switch,'' a causal factor in recreational vessel
and propeller strike-related casualties is the recreational vessel
operator being separated from the helm because of an accidental
ejection or a fall overboard. Data from this report suggests that the
use of an engine cut-off switch would reduce the risk of boating
casualties caused by persons being struck by a recreational vessel or
propeller when the operator is separated from the helm. In addition to
this information, are there other sources of data or information
detailing benefits or avoided damages which may result from the use of
engine cut-off switches?
2. What vessel types should be considered for mandatory engine cut-
off switch requirements (e.g., all motor vessels, motor vessels with
hand-tiller motors, PWCs, houseboats)?
3. What vessel lengths should not be considered for mandatory
engine cut-off switch requirements (e.g., motor vessels greater than 26
feet in length)?
4. What engine power (``horse- power '') measures should be
considered for mandatory engine cut-off switch requirements (e.g.,
engines greater than 3 horsepower)?
5. What other engine or vessel features should the Coast Guard
consider to determine the boating population that should be covered by
engine cut-off switch requirements?
6. Based on information provided by the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA), manufacturers have been routinely
installing engine cut-off switches on engines or their associated
starting controls.\12\ What data exists to estimate the percentage of
recreational vessels and engines that have engine cut-off switches
provided as standard equipment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ According to National Marine Manufacturers Association
(NMMA), ``for more than ten years, many of the motorboats on the
market have been equipped with engine cut-off switches''. (Press
release, April 10, 2006: https://www.nmma.org/news/news.asp?id=12346&sid=43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. How many and what types of recreational vessels or engines do
not have engine cut-off switches provided as standard equipment (e.g.,
boats constructed by owner)?
8. According to a report by the Outdoor Foundation in partnership
with the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, one measure of
the number of outings or trips for non-commercial recreational vessels
is 15 per year for powerboat users.\13\ Are there any additional
sources documenting the number of trips for recreational vessels or
recreational vessel use rates by vessel types?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Outdoor Foundation in partnership with the Recreational
Boating and Fishing Foundation, ``A Special Report on Fishing and
Boating'', 2009, page 36 (see https://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.fishing.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Similarly, are there any sources documenting the average number
of trips commercial operators of recreational vessels make in a year?
10. What is the average number of times an engine cut-off switch
lanyard or device would be attached and detached in a trip by the
vessel operator?
11. What is the average amount of time it would take for a vessel
operator to attach or detach the lanyard?
12. How would operators and passengers be impacted by the number of
times an engine cut-off switch is attached and detached by the vessel
operator? How should the Coast Guard consider the potential ``hassle
factor'' associated with using an engine cut-off switch?
13. If a vessel or engine currently does not have an engine cut-off
switch installed, what are the installation costs, separated out into
parts and labor categories?
14. What is the average lifespan of an engine cut-off switch?
15. What are the associated maintenance and replacement costs of
engine cut-off switch devices?
16. What is the recommended lanyard replacement schedule? How often
are lanyards replaced? What is the average cost of the lanyard
replacement? When operating a recreational vessel equipped with an
engine cut-off switch, does the operator purchase and maintain a spare
lanyard?
17. How many boaters use wireless engine cut-off switch devices?
What percentage of total cut-off switch use
[[Page 33166]]
does this represent? What percentage of these wireless devices are
standard (original) equipment on vessels and engines? What are the
installation and maintenance costs (labor and equipment) of wireless
devices? What is the expected lifespan of wireless devices? Are there
any special performance or failure issues unique to wireless devices?
18. How would this proposal change boater preference for wireless
engine cut-off switch devices? Would boaters choose more expensive
wireless systems over standard non-wireless systems? If so, why and how
many?
19. As a result of this proposal, would vessel and engine
manufacturers adopt wireless technology as standard equipment?
20. Would this proposal increase the use and wear of engine cut-off
switch devices over and above the manufacturer's recommended use? Would
this proposal increase the replacement costs of engine cut-off switch
devices?
21. What is the risk of unintended activations of engine cut-off
switch devices? 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?
22. What is the risk of engine cut-off switch device failure (i.e.,
engine does not cut off when operator is ejected)? What is the current
estimated rate of engine cut-off switch device failures? What are the
impacts of engine cut-off switch device failures? Are there any
injuries or fatalities associated with engine cut-off switch device
failures?
23. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate
compliance rates of this proposal? What data exists to estimate how
compliance with proposal will change from initial phase-in to full
implementation?
24. How would the challenge to visually inspect from a distance
whether an engine cut-off switch device is being used affect compliance
with engine cut-off switch device requirements?
25. What are the compliance rates with State laws that require use
of engine cut-off switch devices?
26. What is the voluntary use rate of engine cut-off switch devices
in States without engine cut-off switch device laws?
27. Five States (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, and
Nevada) currently require boaters to use engine cut-off devices on
certain recreational vessels. What other State laws are being developed
for engine cut-off switch device regulations? 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 engine cut-off switch device use.
28. What are the costs associated with implementation of State laws
requiring mandatory use of engine cut-off switch devices?
29. What is the effectiveness based on the reduction in fatalities,
injuries, and property damage from recent changes in State laws
regarding the use of engine cut-off switch devices?
Dated: June 2, 2011.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-14140 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
