[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63645-63650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 175

[USCG-2001-10163]
RIN 2115-AG18


Federal Requirements For Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require owners of non-planing 
recreational houseboats with propeller-driven propulsion located aft of 
the transom to install one of two propulsion unit measures or employ 
three combined measures. This change responds to recommendations made 
by the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC). The proposed 
rule would reduce the number of boaters who are seriously or fatally 
injured when struck by a non-planing recreational houseboat with 
propeller-driven propulsion.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before March 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: To make sure that your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2001-10163), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Internet Site for the Docket 
Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. The Docket Management Facility 
maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material 
received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this 
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 
on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet 
at http://dms.dot.gov. You may obtain a copy of this proposed rule by 
calling the U. S. Coast Guard Infoline at 1-800-368-5647, or read it on 
the Internet, at the web site for the Office of Boating Safety, at 
http://www.uscgboating.org or at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, contact Carlton Perry, Project Manager, Office of Boating Safety, 
U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at 202-267-0979 or by e-mail at 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department 
of Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting

[[Page 63646]]

comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-
10163), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic 
means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 
but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you 
submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, 
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit them by mail and want to know 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. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Regulatory History. The Coast Guard received requests from the 
National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), propeller strike 
prevention organizations, and the general public to require 
installation of propeller guards on recreational houseboats and other 
displacement (non-planing) vessels, including those leased by livery 
operations. While accident data currently available to us does not show 
a high number of reported fatalities from propeller strikes annually, 
the number of responses to the 1995 and 1997 notices of request for 
comments (discussed below) indicate a great deal of public interest in 
whether and how the Federal government should act to prevent propeller-
strike accidents. After consideration of public input and consultation 
with the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), we 
determined that we should promulgate regulations for owners of 
houseboats as non-planing recreational vessels with propeller-driven 
propulsion aft of the transom.
    Initial Notice of Request for Comments. To gather information from 
the recreational boating public and industry, we published a notice of 
request for comments in the Federal Register in May 1995 (60 FR 25191). 
We asked the recreational boating public to comment on: (1) The 
economic and other impacts of establishing a requirement for propeller 
guards on recreational houseboats and other displacement (non-planing) 
vessels; (2) suggestions on alternatives to propeller guards that 
should also be considered; (3) recommendations on the applicability of 
regulations; and (4) concerns of the livery and charter industries.
    We received over 100 comments during the 60-day comment period. 
Various parties, including the National Association of State Boating 
Law Administrators (NASBLA) requested an extension of the comment 
period. To accommodate this request, we published a notice to reopen 
the comment period for an additional 120-days in August 1995 (60 FR 
40545). We received 1,994 comments to this notice, including more than 
1,800 form letters that supported a requirement to use propeller guard 
technology or jet pump propulsion on rental houseboats. An additional 
69 comments also supported developing such a requirement. Fifty-seven 
comments objected to such a requirement. The information received was 
voluminous, but too general to help us develop a regulation.
    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in March 1996 (61 FR 13123) that 
asked questions to gather current and specific information about the 
injuries involving propeller strikes and rented boats. We also 
announced a series of meetings across the country to enable the public 
to express their views. Some of the questions specifically sought out 
the following information: the appropriate Federal and State roles in 
reducing propeller strike incidents; whether government intervention is 
appropriate; and if so, whether it should be directed at the vessels, 
their manufacturers, their operators, their owners, or the companies 
leasing such vessels.
    Second Notice of Request for Comments. After reviewing available 
research and the comments from the public, and consulting with NBSAC at 
its November 1996 meeting, we published another notice of request for 
comments in April 1997 (62 FR 22991) and provided a 90-day comment 
period. We solicited comments on the effectiveness of specific devices 
and interventions that may reduce the number of recreational boating 
accidents involving rented powerboats in which individuals are injured 
by the propeller. We also asked for information about other devices or 
interventions (propeller injury avoidance measures) that may reduce the 
severity of injuries to individuals involved in propeller-strike 
accidents.
    The devices or interventions we asked about included: (1) Swimming 
ladder locations and interlocks; (2) large warning notices to make the 
operators, passengers and swimmers more aware of the dangers; (3) 
propeller location wands; (4) clear vision aft to alert operators to 
the presence of swimmers near the propeller; (5) propeller shaft 
engagement alarms to alert passengers and swimmers of a rotating 
propeller; (6) conversion of a standard inboard, outboard, or inboard/
outboard engine with a jet pump propulsion engine; (7) ignition cut-
off/auto throttle and neutral returns to stop the propeller when the 
helm is vacated or unattended; and (8) education specifically directed 
to the location and dangers of propellers. We also solicited comments 
on propeller guards, and any other devices that might reduce the 
occurrence or severity of injuries due to propeller strikes. Based on 
requests from the public, we published a notice that extended the 
comment period an additional 210 days in August 1997 (62 FR 44507).
    Summary of Comments. In response to the ANPRM and the notices, we 
received 2,027 comments, more than 1,800 of which were form letters and 
none of which contained information sufficient to support proposing 
requirements for manufacturers of new recreational boats, nor did they 
help us determine the estimated burdens and costs to boat 
manufacturers. Of the total comments received, 95% were in favor of 
initiating a Federal regulation.
    NBSAC Consultation. At the April 30, 2000, NBSAC Subcommittee 
meeting, we presented the results of our research on accident report 
statistics: vessels most frequently involved with injuries are open 
recreational motorboats in the category ``16 feet to less than 26 feet 
in length.'' We announced our intention to initiate a regulatory 
project that would require owners of this category of recreational 
vessels to attach pre-printed warning labels at strategic locations on 
their vessels. We would also propose requirements for owners to attach 
a propeller guard on a smaller number of rental non-planing houseboats. 
The Subcommittee report included the Coast Guard rulemaking project 
description. The Subcommittee presented its report to the full Council 
at the May 1, 2000, meeting and the Council accepted the Subcommittee's 
report without amendment.

[[Page 63647]]

    At the October 2000 NBSAC Subcommittee meeting, the Subcommittee 
reviewed the preferred alternative from its April 2000 meeting and 
recommended that we propose, instead, an expanded list of interventions 
for vessels in the category ``16 feet to less than 26 feet in length.'' 
As a result, we developed and presented a number of propeller injury 
avoidance measures to NBSAC for their review. Again, the full Council 
accepted the Subcommittee report.
    At the April 2001 NBSAC Subcommittee meeting, we presented the 
expanded list of alternatives from which owners of the affected vessels 
can choose for their vessels. After discussing the alternatives and 
their cost, the Council recommended that the Coast Guard, instead, 
develop four specific regulations:
    (1) Require owners of all propeller driven vessels 12 feet in 
length and longer with propellers aft of the transom to display 
propeller warning labels and to employ an emergency cut-off switch, 
where installed;
    (2) Require manufacturers and importers of new planing vessels 12 
feet to 26 feet in length with propellers aft of the transom to select 
and install one of several factory installed propeller injury avoidance 
methods;
    (3) Require manufacturers and importers of new non-planing vessels 
12 feet in length and longer with propellers aft of the transom to 
select and install one of several factory installed propeller injury 
avoidance methods; and
    (4) Require owners of all non-planing rental boats with propellers 
aft of the transom to install either a jet propulsion system or a 
propeller guard or all of several propeller injury avoidance measures.
    This regulatory project would focus on implementing the fourth 
NBSAC recommendation. We will address the other NBSAC recommendations 
in subsequent regulatory projects. Due to the extensive broadening of 
the initial regulatory project, we are withdrawing the initial 
regulatory project, as published in the Notices section of this 
document, and initiating the first of a series of separate regulatory 
projects in response to recent NBSAC recommendations. We have placed 
the public docket for the initial regulatory project (CGD 95-041) into 
a new public docket (USCG-2001-10299) at the Docket Management System 
(DMS) at the above address under ADDRESSES for public viewing.
    Use of the propeller injury avoidance measures described in this 
proposed rule would, in most cases, prevent direct contact of the 
propeller blades with persons in the water and minimize serious and 
fatal injuries due to propeller strikes.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    1. Section 175.03 of Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations would be 
amended to include definitions of the following terms used in this 
subpart: clear vision aft, houseboat, ignition cut-off switch, non-
planing vessel, planing vessel, and swim ladder interlock. We would 
specifically like public comment on these terms and definitions.
    2. Part 175--Equipment Requirements would be revised by adding a 
new subpart E--Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures.
    3. New section 175.301, Applicability, would describe the category 
of recreational vessels that are subject to the new requirements: Non-
planing recreational houseboats with propeller-driven propulsion 
located aft of the transom. We would specifically like public comment 
on definitions for terms used in this section.
    4. New sections 175.310 and 175.315 would describe the specific 
safety measures required by this proposed rule. Section 175.310 
instructs owners and operators of vessels for rent; section 175.315 
instructs owners and operators of vessels not for rent.

Owner and Operator Requirements for Vessels for Rent

    Under proposed section 175.310, owners of recreational, non-planing 
houseboats for rent with propeller-driven propulsion located aft of the 
transom must equip their vessels with either a propeller guard, or a 
combination of three propeller injury avoidance measures: A swim ladder 
interlock, an aft visibility device, and an emergency ignition cut-off 
switch. Operators of vessels for rent must use either a propeller guard 
or all three propeller injury avoidance measures listed above.

Owner and Operator Requirements for Vessels Not for Rent

    Under proposed section 175.315, owners of recreational, non-planing 
houseboats not for rent with propeller-driven propulsion located aft of 
the transom must equip their vessels with either a propeller guard, or 
both of the following propeller injury avoidance measures: a swim 
ladder interlock and an aft visibility device.
    Operators of vessels not for rent must use either a propeller 
guard, or all of the following propeller injury avoidance measures: a 
swim ladder interlock, an aft visibility device, and an emergency 
ignition cut-off switch (if factory installed).
    We are not requiring owners of vessels not for rent to install an 
emergency ignition cut-off switch because it may be cost-prohibitive. 
However, if a vessel has an emergency ignition cut-off switch that was 
installed at the factory, vessel operators must use it. If a vessel 
does not have a factory-installed emergency ignition cut-off switch, we 
encourage, but do not require the owner to get one.
    We would specifically like public comment on the availability of, 
and experience with, the safety devices described in this proposed 
rule. We would also like feedback about your experience operating a 
vessel with a propeller guard; fitting a propeller guard to a vessel 
drive unit; or concerns about propeller guard clogging, if any.
    5. Phase-in period for installing safety measures. To minimize the 
immediate economic burden on owners of both rental and non-rental 
vessels and to provide a reasonable time period for compliance, we 
would provide a phase-in period for implementing the safety measures. 
Owners of vessels not for rent, lease, or charter would have 2 years 
from the date that a final rule is published to install the prescribed 
safety measures. Owners of vessels for rent, lease, or charter would 
have an additional year (3 years) from the date that a final rule is 
published to install the prescribed safety measures. We are allowing 
owners of vessels for rent an extra year because, in many cases, they 
have multiple vessels on which they must install the safety measures.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not 
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT follows:

Costs of Proposed Rule

    We estimate that this rule would impose a $12 to $30 million 
economic cost on owners of approximately 100,000 non-planing 
houseboats. Approximately 5,000 of these vessels are rented, leased or 
chartered.

[[Page 63648]]

    Owners who lease, rent, or charter non-planing recreational 
houseboats would have to install either a propeller guard or three 
combined measures. The three measures include a swim ladder interlock 
($100 plus installation), a clear visibility aft device ($20, self-
installed), and an ignition cut-off switch ($40, plus installation). 
Owners of non-planing non-rental recreational houseboats would not be 
required to install an ignition cut-off switch. Therefore, in our 
calculation of the total minimum cost to this group of owners, we have 
only included the cost of the other two measures.
    Owners could convert their engine into a jet pump at a cost of 
$2500 and be exempt from this rule. Because we do not expect many 
houseboat owners to do this, the maximum cost is based on installation 
of a propeller guard, which we estimate to be $300 (self-installed).
    To minimize the immediate economic impact of this rule, owners of 
non-rental houseboats are provided two years to comply; rental and 
livery businesses are granted an additional year (three years) to 
comply.
    We estimate that costs to the government would be minimal. The 
Coast Guard would have to expand its Boarding Officer personnel 
training to include checking for installation of the injury avoidance 
measures, a propeller guard, or a jet pump engine in a safe and 
determinative manner, during currently required field boardings of 
recreational vessels for safety equipment checks.

Benefits of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule is appropriate because the Boating Accident 
Reporting Database (BARD) shows that the number of injuries and 
fatalities reported during calendar years 1990 through 1999 occurred at 
a chronic rate. BARD data for the same period revealed a total of 18 
injuries and 2 fatalities involving non-planing recreational 
houseboats. The number of injuries to be prevented by this rule may be 
greatly understated since many boaters are unaware of the requirement 
to report accidents.
    The benefits of avoiding future propeller strike injuries and 
fatalities are based on the eighteen propeller strike injuries and two 
fatalities caused by non-planing houseboats from 1990 through 1999. If 
we anticipate 100% compliance with this regulation and assume the 
eighteen injuries to be severe, then the total monetary benefits of 
injuries avoided are $9.1 million. The total monetary benefits of 
injuries avoided are based on the value society is willing to pay to 
avert a severe injury, which the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation has calculated to be $506,300.
    In addition, two propeller-related fatalities were reported in the 
accident database from 1990 through 1999. If compliance with the 
regulation prevents these fatalities, then the total monetary benefits 
of fatalities avoided, based on the value society is willing to pay to 
avert a fatality, are $5.4 million ($2,700,000  x  2 deaths). The total 
monetary benefit to society for avoiding all of the injuries and 
fatalities involving non-planing houseboats are $14.5 million ($9.1 for 
injuries and $5.4 for fatalities) over a 10-year period. This exceeds 
our lowest cost estimates of $12 million. If at least twelve fatalities 
are averted due to the implementation of the regulation, the benefits 
will exceed our highest cost estimates of $30 million for this rule.
    Vessel owners may incur additional benefits from lower insurance 
premiums as a result of their use of improved safety measures.
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule would reduce the number of 
people who are killed or injured due to a propeller strike involving 
non-planing recreational houseboats.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    Individuals, not small entities, own the majority of non-planing 
recreational houseboats affected by this rule; however, under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Coast Guard must determine the impact 
on small entities. The Coast Guard estimates that there are 300 
houseboat rental facilities that must install the propeller injury 
avoidance measures required by this rule. In order to minimize the 
burden on these small entities, the Coast Guard would provide them 3 
years (an additional year beyond the 2 years provided to owners of non-
rental houseboats) to comply with this rule.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic effect on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effect on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Carlton Perry, Project Manager, 
Office of Boating Safety, by telephone at 202-267-0979, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them
    We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have 
determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Under 
this proposal, the Coast Guard establishment of a performance standard 
or equipment installation requirement would not conflict with any 
existing State statute. The Coast Guard routinely consults with the 
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and 
will continue to do so on this specific regulatory project.

[[Page 63649]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. The proposed rule requires 
owners of non-planing recreational houseboats with propeller-driven 
propulsion located aft of the transom to install one of two propulsion 
unit measures or three combined measures. The propeller guard devices 
do not create sufficient drag through the water for these slow moving 
non-planing vessels to result in an increase of consumption of fossil 
fuels or increase air pollution due to increased exhaust. A 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 175

    Marine Safety.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 175 as follows:

PART 175--EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

    1. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Amend Sec. 175.3 by adding the following undesignated 
definitions in alphabetical order to the rest of the section, to read 
as follows:


Sec. 175.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Clear visibility aft device means a device, such as a video camera 
and monitor or a mirror, that allows the operator to see aft of the 
vessel from the engine throttle control station to be aware of the 
presence of a swimmer near a propeller.
    Houseboat means a motorized vessel designed primarily with 
accommodation spaces with little or no foredeck or cockpit, with low 
freeboard and with a low length to beam ratio.
    Ignition cut-off switch means a device that interrupts the engine 
ignition to stop the engine when the operator moves away from the 
engine throttle control station.
* * * * *
    Non-planing vessel means a vessel with a hull that is designed to 
ride through the water at any speed.
* * * * *
    Planing vessel means a vessel with a hull that is designed to ride 
on top of the water beyond a minimum speed.
* * * * *
    Swim ladder interlock means a device that interrupts the engine 
ignition to stop the engine when a swim ladder is moved into position 
near the propeller.
* * * * *
    3. Amend part 175 by adding a new subpart E--Propeller Injury 
Avoidance Measures as follows:

Subpart E--Propeller Injury Avoidance Measures


Sec. 175.301  Applicability.


Sec. 175.310  Propeller safety measures for rental houseboats.


Sec. 175.315  Propeller safety measures for non-rental houseboats.


Sec. 175.301  Applicability.

    (a) Sections 175.310 and 175.315 apply to recreational vessels 
described in Sec. 175.1, which:
    (1) Are monohull houseboats;
    (2) Use a propulsion drive unit with an exposed propeller located 
aft of the transom; and
    (3) Are designed to be operated in a non-planing manner.
    (b) Sections 175.310 and 175.315 do not apply to multi-hull vessels 
or planing vessels.


Sec. 175.310  Propeller safety measures for rental houseboats.

    (a) If you own a recreational non-planing houseboat and provide it 
for rent, charter or lease, you must either--
    (1) Cover each exposed propeller located aft of the transom with a 
propeller guard attached in a secure manner; or;
    (2) Do all of the following--
    (i) Install and maintain an interlock device for each swim ladder;
    (ii) Install and maintain a clear visibility aft device that 
provides a clear view, aft of the vessel from the engine throttle 
control area; and
    (iii) Install and maintain an emergency ignition cut-off switch.

[[Page 63650]]

    (b) If you operate a rented, chartered, or leased vessel that has 
an exposed propeller located aft of the transom, you must--
    (1) Use all swim ladder interlock devices;
    (2) Use a clear visibility aft device that provides a clear view, 
aft of the vessel from the engine throttle control station; and
    (3) Use the emergency ignition cut-off switch.


Sec. 175.315  Propeller safety measures for non-rental houseboats.

    (a) If you own a recreational non-planing houseboat and do not 
provide it for rent, charter or lease, you must either--
    (1) Cover each exposed propeller located aft of the transom with a 
propeller guard attached in a secure manner; or
    (2) Do both of the following--
    (i) Install and maintain an interlock device for each swim ladder; 
and
    (ii) Install and maintain a clear visibility aft device that 
provides a clear view, aft of the vessel from the engine throttle 
control station.
    (b) If you operate a vessel with an exposed propeller located aft 
of the transom, you must--
    (1) Use all swim ladder interlock devices;
    (2) Use a clear visibility aft device that provides a clear view, 
aft of the vessel from the engine throttle control area; and
    (3) Use the emergency ignition cut-off switch (if factory 
installed).

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
Terry M. Cross,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-30479 Filed 12-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U