Wearing of Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs) by Certain Children
Aboard Recreational Vessels
[Federal Register: June 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42488-42493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn02-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 175
[USCG-2000-8589]
RIN 2115-AG04
Wearing of Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs) by Certain Children
Aboard Recreational Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requiring that most children under age 13
aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs), or
lifejackets. During 1995-1998, 105 children under 13 died in the water,
66 of them by drowning. This Rule should reduce the number of children
who drown because they are not wearing lifejackets.
DATES: This Interim Rule is effective December 23, 2002. Comments and
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before
August 23, 2002.
ADDRESSES: To make sure they do not enter the docket [USCG-2000-8589]
more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590-0001.
(2) By hand-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
[[Page 42489]]
as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and
be available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Interim
Rule, call Carl Perry, Coast Guard, telephone: 202-267-0979. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,
Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On May 1, 2001, we published in the Federal Register [66 FR 21717]
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Wearing of Personal
Flotation Devices (PFDs) by Certain Children Aboard Recreational
Vessels''. We received 46 letters commenting on the proposed rule. No
public hearing was requested and none was held.
The NPRM followed two published notices of request for comments,
both titled ``Recreational Boating Safety-Federal Requirements for
Wearing Personal Flotation Devices,'' under the docket number CGD 97-
059. The first appeared in the Federal Register on September 25, 1997
[62 FR 50280]; the second, which extended the comment period, on March
20, 1998 [63 FR 13586]. The comments received in response to these
notices we discussed in the NPRM.
After summarizing the comments received in response to the NPRM, we
consulted the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) at its
meeting in October 2001 regarding the results. NBSAC recommended that
we proceed to publish a Final Rule, as proposed in the NPRM.
We published a Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 27,
2002 [67 FR 8881], addressing requirements for children under age 13 to
wear PFDs while the children are on deck and their vessels are under
way. First, for States without their own statutes or rules on age, we
established a Federal requirement complete in itself. Second, for
States with unqualified statutes or rules on age (for most States with
laws on age), we adopted those statutes or rules whole. Third, however,
for States with their own statutes or rules on age qualified by, say,
lengths of vessels, we purported to adopt those statutes or rules
though not so qualified. Even this could have worked except for one
problem: Our boarding-officers and those States' boarding-officers
would have been enforcing different laws on the same waters.
A State Boating Law Administrator alerted us to this potential
misfit between our own rule and States' qualified statutes or rules. At
the same time, as we prepared guidance for our own boarding officers on
the fine points of enforcement, we observed the same misfit. We decided
that we needed to withdraw the Final Rule as it stood and rectify it.
We have already published a Notice of Withdrawal [67 FR 14645 (March
27, 2002)]. By this Interim Rule we rectify the Rule as it stood.
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [USCG-2000-
8589], 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, by hand-delivery, by fax, or
electronically to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit them 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 Interim Rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may ask for one by
submitting a request to the Docket Management Facility at the address
under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.
Background and Purpose
The number of deaths by drowning of children under 13 has decreased
from 26 in 1995 to 11 in 1998. This trend is favorable on its face, and
suggests the possibility that the appropriate Federal policy may be one
of watchful waiting. Yet a review of statistics on recreational-boating
accidents during 1998 showed that the rate of children drowning in
States that require children to wear lifejackets (1.22 such drownings
for every 1000 accidents) is lower than that of States that do not
(1.31 such drownings for every 1000 accidents).
By late 1995, 26 States had enacted statutes or instated rules
requiring children to wear lifejackets while aboard recreational
vessels. The requirements, however, were not consistent nationwide,
affecting children of different ages, while aboard vessels of different
sizes, and engaged in different activities. By late 1999, 36 States had
enacted statutes or instated rules requiring children to wear
lifejackets while aboard recreational vessels. The requirements,
however, still were not consistent nationwide. They varied by the age
for wearing: from under age 18, when the vessel operator is under 18,
to under age 6. They varied in other particulars, too: on the sizes of
vessels (more than 26 feet in length; or less than 65 feet, 26 feet, 19
feet, 18 feet, or 16 feet in length); whether the vessels were under
way, in motion, or not specified; and whether the children were on open
decks, below decks, or in enclosed cabins.
In support of ongoing State efforts to improve boating safety, we
are instating a requirement that children under 13 wear lifejackets
approved by the Coast Guard while aboard recreational vessels under
way, except when the children are below decks or in enclosed cabins. We
are nevertheless adopting any State's statute or rule requiring
children aboard recreational vessels to wear lifejackets within those
States to avoid differences in enforcement between State and Federal
boarding-officers. We encourage States to establish their own
requirements for children and also encourage greater uniformity of
State statutes and rules nationwide.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
By the close of the comment period on August 30, 2001, we had
received 46 comments, from--
11 recreational boaters;
7 governmental agencies;
3 representatives of the boating industry;
1 general business;
1 boating organization;
20 general boating interests;
2 safety organizations; and
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Twenty-two comments supported the Rule as proposed in the NPRM, eight
supported it with changes, and sixteen opposed it.
[[Page 42490]]
Most of the comments that supported the Rule, as proposed in the
NPRM, stated that it would be a positive step toward reducing drownings
and toward a uniform requirement across the States. Two comments
indicated that requiring children to wear PFDs would make boating safer
and more pleasant for parents because parents themselves often wear
PFDs, again to influence children. Parents also know that mishaps
happen quickly and that they cannot always watch children on a boat so
use of PFDs increases their sense of safety. In separate comments, two
agencies in North Carolina stated that that State's data on drownings
indicate that most children who drowned there were not wearing PFDs at
the time of the incidents.
Eight comments either suggested helpful changes or stated that they
could support the Rule, or at least not object to it if certain changes
were made.
Two comments requested that the Rule allow the use of automatic,
inflatable PFDs or safety harnesses on all vessels or at least on every
vessel more than 21 feet in length.
But the proposed rule never contemplated prohibiting, and this
Interim Rule does not prohibit, the use of inflatable PFDs for
children. The Coast Guard has already approved automatic, hybrid,
inflatable PFDs for children, which means these PFDs meet the
requirements of this Rule. Once the Coast Guard has approved automatic,
fully inflatable PFDs for children to wear, such devices will also meet
these requirements. Nor does this Rule prohibit the use of safety
harnesses; it just does not allow their use instead of wearing PFDs.
The Coast Guard has decided not to revise this Rule to take account of
these two comments, because the Rule anticipates them.
One comment suggested limiting the Rule to children on boats less
than 18 feet that are under way or making way, while another suggested
limiting it to children on the decks of vessels more than 65 feet.
The Coast Guard has no data indicating any specific length above
which children become safe even without wearing lifejackets. Even so,
we want to avoid disparate applicability of Federal and State
requirements for wearing PFDs within any specific State. Therefore,
this rule adds a new Sec. 175.25 to adopt any State statute or rule
requiring certain children to wear lifejackets, including such limits
on applicability as the lengths of vessels; whether the vessels are
under way, in motion, or not specified; and whether the children are on
open decks, below decks, or in enclosed cabins.
Several comments asked the Coast Guard to lower the age limit
because many 12-year-olds are better swimmers than many adults. One
comment suggested lowering it to 6 years old when a vessel is not under
way. Another comment recommended exempting those children who have
passed a swimming course or a swimming-proficiency test.
In a study of Recreational Boating Safety from 1993, NTSB
recommended that the Coast Guard work with the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and the American Academy of
Pediatrics to develop ``a uniform component of standards that
establishes an age at or below which all children should be required by
all States to wear personal flotation devices while in recreational
boats.'' NTSB proposed this strategy instead of one that would set
specific Federal age-based requirements for wearing PFDs. The Coast
Guard, these two organizations, and others endorsed mandatory use of
lifejackets for children 12 and under. The other organizations were the
National Safety Council, NBSAC, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, the
National Water Safety Congress, the National Recreational Boating
Safety Coalition, the National Safe Boating Council, the National
Marine Manufacturers Association, the PFD Manufacturers Association,
the American Medical Association, the American Camping Association, and
the National Safe Kids Campaign. At least 14 States selected the same
age-based requirements for children to wear lifejackets, either under
13 years or 12 years and under, which squares with the recent
recommendations of NBSAC and NTSB.
Therefore, we have retained in this Interim Rule the Federal age-
based requirement of under 13, as proposed in the NPRM. (Under 33 CFR
175.5, the States may set their own wearing requirements different from
the Federal ones. Still, under it, the Coast Guard need not defer to
States that have set no such requirements by statute or rule; and it
does not so defer here.)
Another comment suggested that the current wording of ``appropriate
PFDs'' is too vague and requested that the ``appropriate'' be replaced
with ``a Type I, II, III, or V PFD.''
In the preamble to the NPRM [66 FR 21717], under paragraph 2 of the
discussion of section 175.15 of the proposed rule, we stated that the
proposed requirement would be to wear lifejackets approved by the Coast
Guard. We agree with the comment and have revised this section to read
``* * * appropriate PFDs approved by the Coast Guard.''
In its comment, the NTSB requested that the Coast Guard reconsider
allowing States to set their own age-based requirements, even if lower
than 12 years old. The NTSB urged the Coast Guard to establish a
uniform standard for the mandatory use of PFDs for all children under
age 13. According to NTSB, a national standard would help parents and
law-enforcement agencies by minimizing confusion about which children
must wear PFDs in which States. Another comment also asked that the
Rule preempt the different age-based requirements from State to State.
Again, the Coast Guard has decided not to amend 33 CFR 175.5 so as
to preempt the States from setting their own wearing requirements
different from the Federal ones and, in fact, is adopting them where
they exist. States' requirements, even where they vary, represent a
real improvement.
Seven of the sixteen opposing comments stated that mandatory use of
lifejackets is a State issue.
One comment expressed concern that Federal action would interfere
with individual State efforts to mandate use of PFDs. It and another
suggested that each State be allowed to continue drafting laws tailored
to its own distinct waters and boating community. Another comment
stated that the low number of children's drownings that appear in
national statistics indicate that States are handling the issue
properly. Two others disapproved of a Federal requirement because it
would create confusion at a time when most States already require that
children wear lifejackets. One of those, from the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries, stated that, because under the proposed
rule States would continue to enforce existing age limits, it is
``unclear how [that rule]
would encourage greater uniformity of boating
laws.'' It added that Virginia's own data on boating accidents did not
support imposing the requirement on ``potentially hundreds of thousands
of `recreational vessel users'.''
This Interim Rule acknowledges the law-enforcement efforts of the
many States that already require children under specific ages to wear
lifejackets while on board recreational vessels and, by adopting any
statutes or rules requiring children to wear lifejackets, including any
limits on applicability, within those States, does not interfere with
those efforts. It adds authority for boarding officers of the Coast
Guard, enforcing Federal law (or State law assimilated to it), to
support those
[[Page 42491]]
efforts. Further, we encourage other States to undertake their own such
efforts, without imposing a Federal mandate in this Interim Rule.
Other opposing comments stated that national statistics do not
warrant a Federal rule, and one suggested that the Coast Guard focus on
education rather than regulation. Another questioned whether the Coast
Guard's own statistics supported the Rule. It stated that some entries
in the Boating Accident Reporting Database (BARD) first report deaths
as due to drownings, which coroners later conclude were actually due to
carbon-monoxide poison. Another responded that the data indicate that
the Rule would not have saved most children who drowned; and it
concluded that age 12 ``is certainly too old.''
The Coast Guard has fostered and will continue to foster safety in
recreational boating through education and public awareness. However,
we disagree with the comments implying that our boarding officers
should not be authorized to support States' law-enforcement officers by
enforcing requirements for children to wear lifejackets within the
States with such requirements. Our applying ``under 13'' agrees with
recommendations from NBSAC and the NTSB. Whether or not our statistics
compel Federal measures, they do, as we observe, support them.
Therefore, we have retained the age-based requirement as proposed.
Other comments objecting to the Rule noted the Coast Guard's
limited funds for enforcement. One stated that because most States
already have a mandated age limit, generally 12, the Coast Guard would
be wasting valuable man-hours handing out citations like parking
tickets. It also voiced concern that the citations could lead to higher
insurance costs for individual boaters. Another stated that a Federal
rule would be ineffective because there would be no added funding for
enforcement.
In the preamble to the NPRM, under paragraph 1 of the Regulatory
Evaluation discussing the costs of the proposed rule, we stated that
``* * * the Coast Guard already trains its boarding officers to check
safety equipment.'' Enforcement of the Rule will entail few if any
stops that these officers would not have been making anyway during
enforcement of, say, rules on carriage of that equipment. The Coast
Guard has decided that the Rule, as proposed in the NPRM, anticipates
these comments and it adopts that Rule, unchanged in these respects, as
this Interim Rule.
Three comments voiced concern that the proposed rule did not
consider how uncomfortable lifejackets can be for children, especially
those boating in hot, humid climates. One of the three stated that
children wearing lifejackets in those climates could suffer heat stroke
and argued that the Rule would discriminate against children who are
under 13 but who are good, even excellent, swimmers. Another added that
the Coast Guard could reduce the number of drownings more effectively
if it focused educational campaigns on adults who use canoes and
johnboats to go fishing or bird-watching. These people view boating
only as a means to doing the primary activity, so they may not be as
aware of boating safety as boaters with children on board.
Some models and types of lifejackets are more comfortable than
others, designs are ever-evolving, and there are already some designs
available in the marketplace that reduce the threat of injury by heat
stroke. Voluntary swimming is not the same as involuntary swimming
after falling overboard or after a collision. Again, the Coast Guard
has fostered and will continue to foster recreational boating safety
through education and public awareness, even where boating is involved
but where it is not the primary activity. The Coast Guard adopts the
proposed rule, unchanged in these respects, as this Interim Rule.
Other comments stated that the decision whether to place a child in
a lifejacket should belong to the parents or guardians and that the
government cannot protect people from their own poor judgment.
This Interim Rule does not preclude parents and guardians from the
exercise of good judgment, but it does prohibit the operator of the
boat from getting under way until each child on board and on deck is
wearing a lifejacket. It is likely to have the same effect on the
judgment of parents and guardians as laws that require the use of
seatbelts and special seats for children in cars. Even if ``government
cannot protect people from their own poor judgment,'' it can protect
some people from some others' poor judgment. The Coast Guard adopts the
proposed rule, unchanged in these respects, as this Interim Rule.
Discussion of Interim Rule
1. Section 175.3 adds a definition of the term ``State'' to clarify
the applicability of non-Federal requirements and the Federal adoption
of those requirements.
2. Section 175.15 accomplishes a minor editorial change and adds a
new paragraph establishing a requirement for children under 13 to wear
lifejackets approved by the Coast Guard while aboard recreational
vessels.
3. Subpart B adds a new section 175.25 adopting States' statutes or
rules requiring children to wear lifejackets while aboard recreational
vessels within those States.
This Interim Rule (once effective) applies the Federal standard in
full only where a State has not enacted or instated such a requirement.
It would apply in full now, therefore, only in American Samoa,
Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, the Virgin Islands, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming [see
the 1999 edition of the National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators, Reference Guide to State Boating Laws]; and, for
recreational vessels owned in the United States, it applies (once
effective) on the high seas.
Regulatory Evaluation
This Interim 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 it under that Order. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT)[44 FR 11040 (February 26, l979)].
An interim Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT follows:
1. Cost of Rule
This Interim Rule imposes no costs on the boating public. Existing
rules require the carriage of an appropriate lifejacket for each
passenger. Costs to the Government are non-existent as well because the
Coast Guard already directs its boarding officers to board recreational
vessels and already trains them to check safety equipment, once there.
2. Benefit of Rule
This Interim Rule is appropriate because, even though statistics on
boating accidents show that the actual numbers of children under 13
that drowned in recent years were relatively small (14 in 1998, 14 in
1999, and 7 in 2000), these few drownings were avoidable. It should
reduce the number of children under 13 that drown every year because
they are not wearing lifejackets.
This Rule affects only those States that have not established
requirements, by statute or rule, for children to wear lifejackets. In
those States, there were 7
[[Page 42492]]
drownings and 1 moderate injury and 3 critical injuries due to near-
drownings of children under 13 from 1996 through 2000. These drownings
and near-drownings might have been prevented if the children had worn
lifejackets. (These numbers may overstate the number of lives that
could have been saved if the children had worn lifejackets: Narratives
in accident reports may fail to disclose circumstances in which the
victims were pinned, for example, and would have drowned anyway.
Equally, though, they may understate the number of lives that could
have been saved: Many accidents go unreported entirely.)
A memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
dated January 29, 2002, sets the benefit of averting an accidental
fatality in regulatory analyses at $3.0 million. Another memorandum
from that Office, dated January 8, 1993, yet never superseded, advises
agencies within the Department to classify injuries as minor, moderate,
serious, severe, critical, or fatal. The latter memorandum also assigns
to each degree of injury averted a certain percentage of the value of
society's willingness to pay to avert a fatality. To calculate the
value of society's willingness to pay to avert each degree of injury,
we multiplied $3.0 million by the percentage assigned to each degree of
injury averted.
If we consider a 100% rate of compliance with a requirement for
children to wear lifejackets, we can calculate the retrospective
benefits of this Rule as below:
Benefit of Averting Accidental Injuries and Fatalities for States Without Existing Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Severity category of injury Benefit of averting an injuries (1996- Benefit if accidental injuries
accidental injury or fatality 2000) and fatalities are averted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor........................... ($3,000,000)(0.0020)= $6,000 0 ($6,000)(0)= 0
Moderate........................ ($3,000,000)(0.0155)= $46,500 1 ($46,500)(1) = $46,500
Serious......................... ($3,000,000)(0.0575)= $172,500 0 ($172,500)(0) = 0
Severe.......................... ($3,000,000)(0.1875)= $562,500 0 ($562,500)(0) = 0
Critical........................ ($3,000,000)(0.7625)= 3 ($2,287,500)(3) = $6,862,500
$2,287,500
Fatal........................... ($3,000,000)(1.000)= 7 ($3,000,000)(7) = $21,000,000
$3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............................. 11 $27,909,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total value of injuries and fatalities averted for 1996-2000
would have been $27,909,000. Therefore, the average annual value of
injuries and fatalities averted would have been $5,581,800, calculated
as ($27,909,000)/(5 years).
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601-612], we have
considered whether this Interim Rule has 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.
This Federal requirement for children under 13 to wear lifejackets
applies (once effective) to operators of recreational vessels on waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in 33 CFR
2.05-30). Further, it applies likewise to operators of recreational
vessels owned in the United States, while operating on the high seas
(as defined in 33 CFR 2.05-1). Last, since this Rule adopts any State
statute or rule requiring certain children to wear lifejackets,
including any limits on applicability, within those States, this
requirement applies likewise to operators of recreational vessels
either in States with such requirements or on navigable waters of the
United States outside States altogether.
Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to
individuals, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
Rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If you think that this Rule affects small
entities, that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity, and that this Rule will have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think this Rule affects small entities, how
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies,
and how and to what degree this Rule would economically 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 have offered to assist
small entities in understanding this Interim Rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the Rule affects 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
cperry@comdt.uscg.mil.
Small businesses may also send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
rules 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 Interim Rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520].
Federalism
We have analyzed this Interim Rule under Executive Order 13132 and
have determined that, because the Federal requirement for children
under 13 to wear lifejackets will not supersede or preempt any State's
comparable requirement, this Rule does not have implications for
federalism under that Order. The Federal requirements apply in full
only where there are no State requirements; where there are State
requirements, the Federal requirements apply only so as to assimilate
the State requirements.
[[Page 42493]]
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1531-1538]
governs the issuance of Federal rules that impose unfunded mandates. An
unfunded mandate is a requirement that a State, local, or tribal
government, or the private sector, incur direct costs without the
Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those
costs. This Interim Rule does not impose an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This Interim Rule does 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.
Reform of Civil Justice
This Interim 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 Interim Rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This Rule is not an economically significant rule. Nor does it
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children; on the contrary, it advances the
welfare of children even though it defers to States' limits on
applicability of their requirements for children to wear lifejackets.
Indian Tribal Governments
This Interim Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this Interim 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 within OMB 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 Interim Rule
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, this Rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. The Rule requires that certain children
aboard recreational vessels wear lifejackets. A Determination of
Categorical Exclusion 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 amends
33 CFR part 175 as follows:
1. The citation of authority 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 definition in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 175.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
State means a State or Territory of the United States of America,
whether a State of the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 175.15 by removing from the introductory text the
cite ``Sec. 175.17'' and adding in its place the cite Secs. 175.17 and
175.25''; by removing from paragraph (b) the term ``PFD's'' and adding
in its place the term ``PFDs''; and by adding a new paragraph (c), to
read as follows:
Sec. 175.15 Personal flotation devices required.
* * * * *
(c) No person may operate a recreational vessel under way with any
child under 13 years old aboard unless each such child is either--
(1) Wearing an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard; or
(2) Below decks or in an enclosed cabin.
4. Add a new Sec. 175.25 to subpart B, to read as follows:
Sec. 175.25 Adoption of States' requirements for children to wear
personal flotation devices.
On waters within the geographical boundaries of any State that has
established by statute or rule a requirement under which each child
must wear an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard while aboard a
recreational vessel, no person may use such a vessel in violation of
that statute or rule.
Dated: June 3, 2002.
Kenneth T. Venuto,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for
Operations.
[FR Doc. 02-15793 Filed 6-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}