[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55320-55321]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4462-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4462-DR), dated September 19,
2019, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 19, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 19, 2019, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Louisiana

resulting from flooding during the period of May 10 to July 24,
2019, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Louisiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Assumption, Caldwell, Catahoula, Concordia, East Carroll,
Franklin, Iberville, Ouachita, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, St. Martin,
Terrebonne, and West Feliciana Parishes for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Louisiana are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-22466 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17466-17467]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12690-005]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, WA; Notice of
Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydrokinetic pilot project license
application has been filed with the Commission and is available for
public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: License for Pilot Project.
    b. Project No.: 12690-005.
    c. Date Filed: March 1, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County,
Washington (Snohomish PUD).
    e. Name of Project: Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project.
    f. Location: On the east side of Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound,
Washington, about 1 kilometer west of Whidbey Island, entirely within
Island County, Washington. The project would not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-828(c).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven J. Klein, Public Utility District of
Snohomish County, Washington, P.O. Box 1107, 2320, California Street,
Everett, WA 98206-1107;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: David Turner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. With this notice, we are asking federal, state, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or expertise with respect to
environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing described below.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    l. The proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project would consist
of (1) two 19.7-foot-diameter Open-Centre Turbines supplied by
OpenHydro Group Ltd., mounted on completely submerged gravity
foundations; (2) two transmission cables, which run from the turbines
to the cable termination vault; (3) two transmission cables from the
cable termination vault to the proposed cable control building; (4) a
proposed cable control building housing the power conditioning and
monitoring equipment; (5) a transmission cable bringing power from the
cable control building to an existing 12.47-kV transmission line; and
(6) appurtenant facilities for operation and maintenance. The estimated
average annual generation of the project is 216,000 kilowatt-hours.
    m. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of requested additional         April 16, 2012.
 information.
Commission issues REA notice.........  April 23, 2012.
Filing of recommendations,             May 23, 2012.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and preliminary fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Single EA..........  July 23, 2012.
Comments on EA.......................  August 22, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: March 16, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7150 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29986-29987]
[DOCID:fr24my06-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. ICR-1218-0129(2006)]

Standard on Benzene; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in its Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028). The Standard
protects employees from adverse health effects from occupational
exposure to benzene.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard Copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or received)
by July 24, 2006.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be
received by July 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. ICR-
1218-0129(2006), by any of the following methods:
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service: Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Facsimile: If your comments are 10 pages or fewer in length,
including attachments, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov
.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read or download comments or
background materials, such as the complete Information Collection
Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement, OMB-83-I Form, and
attachments), go to OSHA's Web page at http://www.OSHA.gov. In

addition, the ICR, comments and submissions are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.
You may also contact Jamaa Hill at the address below to obtain a copy
of the ICR. For additional information on submitting comments, please
see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa Hill, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e.,employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). In this regard, the Benzene standard
requires

employers to conduct employee exposure monitoring; notify the employees
of their benzene exposures; implement a written compliance program;
implement medical-surveillance of employees; and provide protection for
employees from the adverse health effects associated with exposure to
benzene.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) for the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements
in the Benzene Standard. The information collection requirements
specified in the Benzene Standard protect employees from the adverse
health effects that may result from occupational exposure to benzene.
The major information collection requirements in the standard include
conducting employee exposure monitoring, notifying employees of their
benzene exposures, implementing a written compliance program,
implementing medical surveillance of employees, providing examining
physicians with specific information, ensuring that employees receive a
copy of their medical-surveillance results, maintaining employees'
exposure-monitoring and medical records for specific periods, and
providing access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the employee who is the subject of the
records, the employee's representative, and other designated parties.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements contained in
the Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information
collection requirement.
    Title: Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).
    OMB Number: 1218-0129.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits, Federal Government,
State, local or tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 13,498.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 265,429.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from 5 minutes
to maintain records to 4 hours to complete a referral medical
examination.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 125,209.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $8,133,499.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security-related
problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand
delivery and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for

information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and
for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other
relevant documents are available on OSHA's Web page. Since all
submissions become public, private information such as social security
numbers should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 18, 2006.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 06-4823 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33161-33166]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14140]

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

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 http://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: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-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 http://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 http://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

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 http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec12rpt.pdf. (This number represents the estimated
number of people, operators, and passengers who participated in
recreational boating in 2005-2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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 http://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

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\

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
http://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: http://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 http://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

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