U.S. Department of

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Boating Safety Circular 83

FUEL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE

September 2003

Inside:

Compliance Testing Policy Guidelines .......................... 3

Factory Visit Program .................................................... 4

Recall Campaigns .......................................................... 8

Country of Origin Codes and HINs..............................19

Final Rule; Certification of Navigation Lights..............22

Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date ..............................28

YEAR TYPE OF ACCIDENT TOTAL FATALITIES INJURIES PROPERTY DAMAGE

2001......... Fire of Explosion of Fuel ........... 153 ............. 2 .................. 73 .....................$3,179,323

2000......... Fire or Explosion of Fuel .......... 183 ............. 2 .................. 93 .....................$2,580,764

1999......... Fire or Explosion of Fuel .......... 222 ............. 2 .................125 .....................$2,804,796

1998......... Fire or Explosion of Fuel .......... 202 ............. 4 .................. 90 .....................$3,878,520

1997......... Fire or Explosion of Fuel .......... 160 ............. 0 .................. 76 .....................$3,355,236

The numbers* speak for themselves. From 1997 to

2001 there were an average of 184 boating fires and

explosions annually. Had more boat owners performed

regular fuel system maintenance, many of these

accidents could have been prevented.

Be alert for damage to your boat’s fuel system. Over

a period of time fuel fittings and fuel hoses wear out and

must be replaced. Inspect fuel system fittings and hoses

regularly, especially near the engine where engine heat

can speed up deterioration.

• Inspect fuel tanks at least annually. Pay particular

attention to bottom surfaces which may have been in

contact with bilge water and any part of the tank

which touches the boat structure. The tank could have

rusted or been damaged due to rubbing and abrasion.

Permanently installed fuel tanks should be vented to

the outside of the hull and outside of closed

compartments.

• Be sure the fuel fill pipe is tightly fitted to the fill

plate. The fill pipe should also be located where any

spilled fuel will be directed overboard. Look for fuel

fill hoses that are dry and cracked or soft and mushy.

Such hoses should be replaced with equivalent “USCG

Type” or marine fuel hoses immediately. If a fuel hose

or fuel tank is leaking, replace it before using your

boat.

• On a boat with portable fuel tanks, make sure

the vents can be closed and that each tank has a

vapor-tight, leakproof cap. The vent on a portable

tank should be open when the engine is running,

but when the tank is not in use, the vent and the

cap should be tightly closed. Do not store portable

fuel tanks in enclosed areas, including the engine

room (even though it may be “ventilated”).

• If the boat has powered ventilation (a bilge

blower), make sure the blower operates. Verify

good airflow at the vent located on the boat.

• Be sure heating and cooking appliances on

board are secured and operate properly. Refer to

the owner’s manual for the appliance for guidance

on inspecting for leaks in valves and connections;

never use a match.

• Make sure flammable items are stowed safely

and cannot come into contact with cooking or

heating appliances or hot engine parts.

• Make sure Coast Guard approved fire

extinguishers on board are in working order - that

gauges register and that nozzles are clear. Take a

boating safety course that teaches the correct use

* Based on reported boating accidents. These figures do

not include accidents involving only slight injury which

did not involve medical treatment beyond first aid, or

property damage less than $500.00.
2 Boating Safety Circular

of a fire extinguisher aboard a boat. The time to

learn is before a fire occurs.

• Look for bare wires or loose electrical

connections. They might cause a short in your boat’s

electrical system, which could start a fire.

• Do not store small disposable propane cylinders

or charcoal lighter fluid on board.

• Conduct a bow to stern inspection checking for

fuel leaks, gas fumes and any malfunctioning

instruments.

Before Casting Off --

“Sniff” your bilges. Usually your sense of smell is

the best fuel/vapor detector. It means getting down

on your hands and knees, but is the best way to do it.

Operate the bilge blower for at least four minutes

before starting an inboard (or sterndrive) engine. If

you still smell fumes, try to locate the source and

make repairs before starting the engine.

Make sure your passengers know where fire

extinguishers are located.

When refueling, close all hatches, ports and other

openings; shut off all engines and motors; and refrain

from smoking. Fill portable tanks on the dock.

After refueling, wipe up or wash off any excess fuel;

open all hatches and ports; and let the boat air out.

“Sniff” the boat’s bilges. Operate the bilge blower for

at least four minutes before starting an inboard or

sterndrive engine.

Make these suggestions and regular engine and fuel

system maintenance part of your boating routine.

COAST GUARD PUBLISHES FINAL RULE

ON NAVIGATION LIGHTS

At the back of this issue of the Boating Safety

Circular is a Final Rule covering navigation lights

which was published in the Federal Register on

November 1, 2001. The effect of the rule will be to

require domestic manufacturers of vessels to install

only certified navigation lights on all new uninspected

commercial vessels and recreational vessels. This rule

aligns the requirements for these lights with those for

inspected commercial vessels and with requirements

for all other mandatory safety equipment carried on

board all vessels. A second Federal Register notice

delays the effective date of the navigation light final

rule until November 1, 2003.

The rule directs manufacturers of uninspected

commercial vessels and recreational vessels to install

only navigation lights certified and labeled as meeting

the technical requirements of the Navigation Rules.

It will standardize the navigation light requirement for

uninspected commercial vessels and recreational

vessels with the requirement for inspected

commercial vessels.

Before April 1997, a manufacturer of navigation

lights for uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels could voluntarily apply for a

“Letter of Acceptance” from the U.S. Coast Guard

for its light models. The Coast Guard would compare

a laboratory report for each model sent by the

manufacturer with the technical requirements of the

International and Inland Navigation Rules (together

referred to as the “Navigation Rules”). If the reported

data indicated that the light met the requirements of

the Navigation Rules, the Coast Guard would grant

a “Letter of Acceptance,” allowing the manufacturer

to label the light as “U.S. Coast Guard Accepted.”

The public often interpreted the acceptance label as

meaning that a light was “Coast Guard Approved.”

To eliminate confusion, the Coast Guard stopped

issuing Letters of Acceptance in April 1997.

Consequently, vessel manufacturers, owners,

surveyors, vessel inspectors, and boarding officials

could rely only on a statement from the navigation

light manufacturer that a model of light complied with

the technical requirements of the Navigation Rules.

In 1997 the National Boating Safety Advisory

Council (NBSAC)— representing operators and

manufacturers of recreational vessels, State boating

officials, and national boating organizations—and the

National Association of State Boating Law

Administrators (NASBLA) passed resolutions asking

the Coast Guard to require that navigation lights

installed on recreational vessels offered for sale to

the public be certified. The Navigation Safety

Advisory Council (NAVSAC) passed a similar

resolution relating to uninspected commercial vessels.

In the report, “Recreational Boat Collision Accident

Research,” Underwriters Laboratories recommended

that the Coast Guard take stronger measures to ensure

that navigation lights installed in recreational vessels

meet the requirements established by the Navigation

Rules.
Boating Safety Circular 3

The new requirement will provide evidence of

compliance to vessel manufacturers, surveyors,

owners, inspectors, and boarding officials. It includes

the same requirements as those for navigation lights

for inspected commercial vessels; however, the light

test requirements are less stringent. It also aligns with

the International Navigation Rule requirement

(COLREGS) for “Approval” (33 CFR, subchapter

D, Annex I). The rule does not apply to the

replacement of existing navigation lights on vessels

completed before the designated effective date.

Certification will place navigation lights under

regulatory control comparable to that affecting all

other items of mandatory safety equipment. This will

result in a general improvement in reliability, quality,

 SAFE LOADING TESTS

1. Openings Sealed During the Maximum

Weight Capacity Test:

 Background: In the Safe Loading Standard the

test for the Maximum Weight Capacity (MWC) of

an outboard powered boat (33 CFR 183.35) allows

the boat manufacturer to seal only one (1) hole in the

motor well (with a maximum dimension of three (3)

inches) for outboard motor controls or fuel lines.

Unfortunately, this penalizes boats with large drain

holes and other openings.

 Policy: The MWC is based on the gross volume

of water displaced by the boat at its maximum level

immersion. Therefore, the test lab will seal hull

openings during the test for MWC except where

specifically prohibited by the CFR or the compliance

test procedures. The test lab will seal the following

openings:

 (1) all scuppers, freeing ports (with or without

flaps) or back flow devices, regardless of size;

 (2) drain holes in the bow;

 (3) bait, fish, and anchor well fill/drain holes;

 (4) holes in the motorwell with boots (in addition

to the 3-inch hole already allowed by the regulations);

and

 (5) the hull-to-deck joint.

However, transom doors or equivalent may be open

during normal boat use and are left open during

testing. Drain holes or scuppers that may flood the

boat during normal boat use are reviewed on a case

by case basis, and may be considered major down

flooding or water ingress points.

FLOTATION TESTS

1. Permanently Installed Fuel Tanks:

 Background: During compliance testing,

permanently installed fuel tanks must be filled with

fuel. Due to the hazards of handling, storing, and

testing with gasoline indoors, Coast Guard policy has

allowed the test lab to substitute iron weights for the

weight of gasoline. These iron weights are normally

placed on top of the tank during testing, and the tank

is left empty.

 Policy: Weights equivalent to the weight of fuel

are placed on the deck over the center of gravity of

With the addition of Subpart M -

Navigation Lights as a new safety

standard in 33 CFR Part 183, beginning

on November 1, 2003 all U.S. boat

manufacturers who install navigation

lights and all U.S. importers of foreignbuilt boats with navigation lights installed

must now affix the certification label

required in 33 CFR 181.15.

and effectiveness of domestic and imported lights

available to domestic manufacturers of vessels.

This rule will discourage the practice of installing

lights, custom-made or other, that are not compliant

with the Navigation Rules. Navigation lights are safety

equipment with the designated purpose of preventing

collisions.

RECREATIONAL BOATING STANDARDS

POLICY GUIDELINE: U.S. COAST GUARD

COMPLIANCE TESTING

 Periodically the Coast Guard contractor testing

boats for compliance with the Display of Capacity

Information, Safe Loading and Flotation Standards

buys boats on the open market and physically tests

them in a tank for compliance with the standards.

Experience with the Coast Guard compliance test

program has shown that there are certain procedures

followed in the test lab that the regulations,the

compliance guidelines and the test procedures do not

explicitly describe. This Compliance Testing Policy

Guideline explains those procedures.
4 Boating Safety Circular

the fuel tank. If the boat fails to comply with flotation

requirements, then the iron weights are removed and

the fuel tank is filled to three-fourths capacity with

water. If the boat still fails to comply, then the tank

is completely filled with water. If the boat still fails to

comply, the Coast Guard will send the manufacturer

a report describing the compliance test failure.

2. Time Allowed To Stabilize Between Flotation

Tests:

 Background: No duration is specified before a

flotation compliance test is considered valid.

 Policy: The time allowed for a boat to comply

with the flotation safety standards is 15 minutes after

all test conditions have been met, and the water levels

inside and outside the boat are equal. If a boat is still

bailing out or filling up with water at the end of 15

minutes, but is within passing test parameters, then

the boat passes the test.

3. Flooded Wells (bait, anchor, and fish wells,

 coolers, etc.) During Flotation Tests:

 Background: The regulations do not provide

guidance on how to treat bait wells, anchor wells or

coolers during tests for compliance with the Flotation

Standard.

 Policy: The lab will remove risers and drain plugs

(if they can be removed) and let wells flood or drain

during tests.

4. Trolling Motors and Flotation testing:

 Background: Many boats sold today are equipped

with mounting pads, battery locations, and electrical

harnesses for trolling motors. In some cases, no

flotation is installed for future installation of these

devices.

 Policy: If a boat is equipped or wired for a trolling

motor, the lab will place weights from the table below

at the normal operating positions of the trolling motor

and battery during compliance testing. A least one

dedicated battery is assumed for the trolling motor.

If the actual weight of the trolling motor is known, or

if the boat or trolling motor manufacturer provides

the weight of the motor, the lab will use that weight,

instead of the weight from the table below.

Trolling Motor Thrust Weight in Pounds

In Pounds (does not include batteries)*

40 12

50 23

60 34

70 50

80 56

90 68

100 79

110 90

120 101

130 112

* For battery weight see Table 4 of Subpart H

5. Kicker Engines and Flotation Testing:

 Background: Some boats sold today are equipped

with mounting pads, battery locations, and electrical

harnesses for kicker engines. In some cases, no

flotation is installed for future installation of these

devices.

 Policy: If a boat is equipped with a pad or wiring

for a kicker engine, then the manufacturer should

provide flotation for the swamped weight of the

engine and controls. If the manufacturer does not

provide a label on the boat specifying the horsepower

of the kicker engine, then the lab will assume the

kicker engine horsepower is 10 percent (10%) of

the main engine’s horsepower rating. Weights for

the kicker engine will be obtained from Table 4 in

Subpart H of 33 CFR Part 183, and placed in the

location of the engine and battery. The kicker engine

weight will not be subtracted from the maximum

weight capacity to determine person’s capacity.

UPDATE ON RECREATIONAL BOAT

FACTORY VISIT PROGRAM

Since January 8, 2001, 14 Compliance Associates

working under a Coast Guard contract for Resource

Network International (RNI) of Silver Spring,

Maryland have been conducting recreational boating

factory visits. The purpose of the factory visit

program is to emphasize the need to comply with

Federal safety standards and regulations; to ensure

each manufacturer understands the regulations; and

to assist manufacturers in certifying compliance with

the regulations.

The Recreational Boating Product Assurance
Boating Safety Circular 5

Division assigns all recreational boat manufacturers

a three character Manufacturer Identification Code

(MIC). Using the Coast Guard MIC database (see

http://www.uscgboating.org/recalls/

mic_database.htm) the RNI Compliance Associates

are contacting and visiting all recreational boat

manufacturers and importers on a scheduled basis.

The compliance associate (CA) usually contacts

the manufacturer a couple of times before a visit. The

first contact—a few weeks before a visit—is to

arrange an inspection date, and to confirm

information such as address and types of boats

produced. The second contact—a few days before

the visit—is to reconfirm the date and time of the

visit.

Typically, a CA will ask to inspect current

production and will look for:

1. Noncompliances with Federal regulations which

are manufacturer requirements;

2. Noncompliances with Federal regulations which

are operator requirements; and

3. Manufacturing practices for which voluntary

industry safety standards and recommended practices

are available.

At the end of the visit, which normally takes a

couple of hours, the CA discusses the results with

the manufacturer. Then the CA files a report with

the Recreational Boating Product Assurance Division

at Coast Guard Headquarters. Usually, for minor,

non-safety-related problems, corrective action is

limited to future production. Headquarters may also

direct the manufacturer to conduct defect notification

for any serious non-compliances with Federal safety

standards.

The factory visit program should lead to a

heightened understanding of both Federal and

voluntary safety standards and regulations, and

thereby provide the public with safer recreational

boats.

PROBLEMS NOTICED IN THE FIELD:

 1. Certification labels on products not subject

to 33 CFR Part 181.

 According to Section 181.5 Purpose and

applicability of the Manufacturer Certification of

Compliance regulations:

“This subpart prescribes requirements for the

certification of boats and associated equipment to

which 46 U.S.C. Chapter 43 applies and to which a

safety standard in Part 183 of this chapter applies.”

Some component manufacturers have interpreted

this to mean that fuel pumps or gasoline generator

sets, for example, must bear a manufacturer

certification of compliance statement.

Part 183 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations

prescribes the safety standards and regulations for:

(1) boats; and (2) associated equipment to which

certification requirements in 33 CFR Part 181 apply.

Each of the safety standards in Part 183, from Subpart

B through Subpart L, contains an applicability

section. With the exception of Subpart L, all the

subparts in Part 183 apply to boats.

For example, Subparts B through H of Part 183

apply to certain monohull boats less than 20 feet in

length; Subparts I and J apply to all boats that have

gasoline engines, except outboard engines, for

electrical generation, mechanical power, or

propulsion; and Subpart K applies to all boats that

have gasoline engines for electrical generation,

mechanical power, or propulsion. Subpart L, on the

other hand, applies to outboard motors and starting

controls, and is the only subpart in Part 183 that

currently applies to associated equipment . Had the

Coast Guard intended to regulate electrical generators

or other pieces of associated equipment, we would

have done so as we did with outboard motors and

starting controls. That is to say, we would have done

so in a separate subpart.

Sections 183.405 of Subpart I and 183.507 of

Subpart J of Part 183 do specifically state that each

electrical component on a boat and each fuel system

component on a boat subject to those subparts must

meet the requirements of the Electrical and Fuel

System Standards. Boats subject to those subparts,

however, only include boats in their original,

manufactured form. As evidence of this, 33 CFR

181, which prescribes requirements for the

certification of boats and associated equipment,

defines associated equipment as: “any system, part,

or component of a boat as originally manufactured

...”
6 Boating Safety Circular

If, for example, a gasoline fueled electrical generator

set is part of a boat as originally manufactured, then

the certification of the boat as a unit indicates

certification of the generator set, and the generator

set itself is not required to be certified. Alternatively,

if the generator set is installed in a boat as an aftermarket component, then it is not included in the

certification of the boat as a unit.

Subpart B of Part 181 of Title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations requires a boat manufacturer to certify

that each boat is in compliance with applicable Coast

Guard safety standards in Part 183 when it is sold to

the public. In so doing, the boat manufacturer is

certifying that all of the components on the boat meet

the requirements of the regulations. Therefore,

manufacturers of components such as gasoline fuel

pumps or gasoline powered generator sets should

certify to their customer, the boat manufacturer, on

an invoice or other document, that their components

will not adversely affect a boat’s compliance with

the regulations.

If some time in the future the Coast Guard were to

begin compliance testing of electrical or fuel system

components installed on boats, we would expect the

components to pass. If they did not, the boat

manufacturers would be required to conduct recall

campaigns, and would probably look to the

component manufacturers for compensation.

The Coast Guard does not keep files on associated

equipment known to comply with the regulations.

Also, while there currently is no regulatory

requirement for manufacturers to maintain records

about the compliance of equipment they are installing,

our compliance associates may ask a boat

manufacturer to show evidence that a component has

been certified by the manufacturer.

Finally, manufacturers of products other than boats,

outboard engines and starting controls should be

aware that Chapter 639 of Title 14, United States

Code states, in part, that “No individual, association,

partnership, or corporation shall, without authority

of the Commandant, use the combination of letters

“USCG,” ... or any combination or variation of such

letters or words ... by way of advertisement to induce

the effect of leading the public to believe ... that any

project or business in which he or it is engaged, or

product which he or it manufactures, deals in, or sells,

has in any way been endorsed, authorized, or

approved by the Coast Guard. Every person violating

this section shall be fined not more than $1000, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Therefore, unless the Coast Guard grants

permission to use the term “U.S. Coast Guard,”

display of a certification label meeting the

requirements of 33 CFR Part 181 on a product other

than a boat is improper and illegal.

2. Fuel System Pressure Test. Sec. 183.542

Fuel systems.

(a) Each fuel system in a boat must have been tested

by the boat manufacturer and not leak when

subjected to the greater of the following pressures:

(1) Three pounds per square inch; or

(2) One and one-half times the pressure created

 in the lowest part of the fuel system when it

 is filled to the level of overflow with fuel.

(b) The test pressure shall be obtained with air or

inert gas.

This section requires a test of the entire fuel system,

up to the engine fuel inlet. The engine fuel inlet may

be a fuel filter, fuel pump or carburetor, depending

upon what components are supplied with and

mounted on the engine.

The entire fuel system includes:

• Fuel fill(s)

• Fuel vent(s)

• Fuel tank(s)

• Fuel distribution line(s)

Compliance associates have reported that some

factories perform the test by clamping or pinching

the fuel vent line where it attaches to the vent fitting.

This is not an acceptable industry practice. The vent

fitting must be plugged on the exterior of the boat.

If manufacturers are having problems with vent

fittings that can’t be plugged, then we recommend

that they find another fitting supplier or find a unique

way to plug the fitting. If component suppliers are

getting fancier with their fittings and making it difficult

for boat manufacturers to properly conduct the

pressure test as required, then let the market fix the

problem - don’t buy vents that can’t be plugged.

 3. Grounding of Fuel Systems on Boats with

Metal Hulls. Sec. 183.572 Grounding.
Boating Safety Circular 7

 Each metallic component of the fuel fill system and

fuel tank which is in contact with fuel must be statically

grounded so that the resistance between the ground

and each metallic component of the fuel fill system

and fuel tank is less than 100 ohms.

 Fuel flowing from the dispensing nozzle into a fuel

tank is a potential source of a static electric charge

which could cause a spark between the dispensing

nozzle and a metal component of the fuel tank fill

system. To prevent such a spark from occurring,

metallic components of the fuel tank fill system and

metallic fuel tanks must be grounded. Grounding or

bonding may be accomplished by connecting the

metallic components electrically by running a wire

from one component to the next, and so forth to the

boat’s ground. Grounding can usually be

accomplished by a connection to the common

bonding conductor or the engine negative terminal.

But what about grounding the fuel system on a boat

with a metal hull, twin inboard engines and both AC

and DC electrical systems?

One builder asserted that since both engines were

grounded to the aluminum hull, they did not need a

bond wire between the blocks. However, since the

boat also had an AC electrical system on board, this

was not the case and improper installation could have

resulted in a potentially fatal situation.

When properly installed, AC systems and DC

systems are connected at the same point, usually the

ground to the engine block or to a common ground

buss. They should not be grounded anywhere else

on the boat.

Improper grounding creates a serious hazard to the

boating community. If the ground is connected to

the metal hull, a serious shock hazard exists should a

ground fault occur in the primary conductor (the black

wire) or the grounded conductor (also called the

neutral or white wire) in the AC system. When this

ground fault occurs, 110 volts is impressed on the

metal hull. Anyone touching the hull or any metal on

the boat that is connected to the hull could be

electrocuted to death. In addition, a current is created

in the water surrounding the boat, and anyone

swimming nearby will receive a potentially fatal shock.

If not electrocuted to death, the swimmer will be

paralyzed by the AC current and drown.

The most common reason for this hazard is the use

of household appliances aboard a metal-hulled boat.

In household appliances, the green grounding wire

and the white neutral wire are connected inside the

appliance. If household appliances are installed on a

boat and the two wires are not disconnected, a

ground fault will occur as discussed above.

If the engines are grounded to the hull then that

ground must be disconnected. Grounded cranking

motor circuits must also be connected to each other

by a common conductor circuit that can carry the

starting current of each of the grounded cranking

motor circuits. We recommend that builders follow

the American Boat and Yacht Council Standards for

installing both DC and AC systems.

If a boat has only a DC system, grounding the

engines to the hull would not present a danger of

shock hazard should a ground fault occur in the DC

system. With a locked rotor condition in one of the

starters or should the windings in the armature short

out, the hull would provide a path to ground. The

only problem would be stray currents causing

corrosion to the metal hull. Stray current corrosion

is not a safety problem and is not covered by the

Coast Guard safety standards.

DEFECT NOTIFICATION AND RECALL

CAMPAIGNS

Problem Descriptions:

Basic Flotation: Most inboard, inboard/outdrive and

jetdrive powered motorboats less than 20 feet in length

are required to contain sufficient flotation so that some

portion of the boat remains above the surface of the

water if the boat is swamped. Boats with “Basic

Flotation” problems will sink if they capsize or swamp.

Level Flotation: Most outboard powered motorboats

less than 20 feet in length are required to float level

when they are swamped and to support a certain

percentage of the weight which they are rated to carry.

Boats with “Level Flotation” problems do not float

level when swamped.

Capacity Label Missing, Maximum Persons

Capacity Overrated, Maximum Weight Capacity

Overrated or Horsepower Capacity Overrated:

Almost all motorboats less than 20 feet in length are

required to bear a “U.S. Coast Guard Maximum

Capacities” label. If the label is missing or the values

are overrated, an operator who is unfamiliar with a
8 Boating Safety Circular

BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL

PRODUCTS

(Sturtevant, WI)(020082T)

Year: 2001 & 2002

Models: 2001 Utopia 185 models:

5452, 5454, 5456 and 5458

2001 Challenger 2000 model 5448

2002 Utopia 185 & 205 models:

 5462, 5475, 5476 and 5745

2002 Islandia model 5709

Units: 473

Problem: Engine wiring harness has three exposed

wires (one of which carries battery voltage); possible

spark if battery wire contacts metal while engine is

running; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source

present

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(030010T)

Year: 2003

Models: Sportster 4-TEC Sport Boats

Model 5770 w/ HINs:

US-CEC55000L203 -

US-CEC55183A303

Model 5768 w/ HINs:

US-CEC65001L203 -

US-CEC65055A303

Units: 178

Problem: Fuel tank air vent nipple might have been

deformed during clamp torquing procedure; potential

fuel leak; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL

PRODUCTS

(Sturtevant, WI)(020153T)

Year: 2002

Models: Utopia 185 and 205 Sport Boats

Units: 437

Problem: Starboard and/or port console may come

loose. If starboard console comes loose, operator

might lose steering/control causing danger of collision.

If port console comes loose handhold may separate

from deck causing passengers to lose balance

particular boat may try to carry too much weight or, in

the case of outboard powered boats, too much

horsepower. Some insurance companies will not insure

a boat that lacks the label or bears a label with incorrect

information.

 The recall list includes new campaigns as well as old

ones. The new campaigns begun since January 2002,

follow:

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORP.

(Torrance, CA)(020129T)

Year: 2002

Models: ARX1200T3 with HINs:

HPSA0001J102 to HPSA3548J102

ARX1200N3 with HINs:

HPSB0001J102 to HPSB1506J102

Units: 5,037

Problem: Bearings within throttle body subject to

corrosion; throttle may not return to idle position;

possibility of collision

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORP.

(Torrance, CA)(030056T)

Year: 2002 & 2003

Models: Honda 200 & 225 HP Outboard Motors:

2002 BF200 w/ serial nos.:

BAEJ-1000001 to BAEJ-1000969

BAFJ-1000001 to BAFJ-1000222

2003 BF200 w/ serial nos.:

BAEJ-1100001 to BAEJ-1100708

BAFJ-1100001 to BAFJ-1100120

2002 BF225 w/ serial nos.:

BAGJ-1000001 to BAGJ-1003344

BAHJ-1000001 to BAHJ-1000601

2003 BF225 w/ serial nos.:

BAGJ-1100001 to BAGJ-1101489

BAHJ-1100001 to BAHJ-1100662

Units: 5,805

Problem: Potential interference between wire

harness and throttle body may lead to short circuit

which blows a fuse, stops the engine or overheats the

throttle cable; throttle could stick; possible collision

BAYLINER MARINE CORP.

(Everett, WA)(030085T)

Year: 2002 & 2003

Models: 2109 and 209 Deck Boats

Units: 40

Problem: (See Blue Sea Systems on next page)
Boating Safety Circular 9

BLUE SEA SYSTEMS

(Bellingham, WA)(030062T)

Year: 2002 & 2003

Models: T-1 Thermal Circuit Breakers:

Part Number Amperage Part Number Amperage

7120 25 7020 25

7121 30 7021 30

7122 35 7022 35

7123 40 7023 40

7124 50 7024 50

7125 60 7025 60

7126 70 7026 70

7127 80 7027 80

7128 90 7028 90

7129 100 7029 100

7130 110 7030 110

7131 120 7031 120

7132 135 7032 135

7133 150 7033 150

shipped to the following OEM purchasers:

Atlas Boat Works, Inc.

Beneteau Mfg. USA, Inc.

BH Electronics, Inc.

Carver Boat Corp.

Chantiers Beneteau SA

Chuckhouse, Inc.

Cruisers Yachts

Davis Boats

Endeavor Catamaran

Ennals Ives

Fleet Safety Supply

Florida Bow Thrusters

Good Automatic Windlass

Harken, Inc.

Hells Bay Boat Works

High Tech Marine, Inc.

Hinckley Company

Ideal Windlass Co., Inc.

Ironwind, Inc.

 DBA Moose Boats

M & G Electronics Corp.

Marintek

Medeiros Boat Wks. Ltd.

Nordic Tugs, Inc.

Novatron Corporation

Ocean Technologies

Pacer Marine

Pacific Mariner, Inc.

Pacific Trawlers NW

Regal

S2 Yachts, Inc.

Sabre Corp.

Safe Boat

Scandik, Inc.

Sea Ray - Merritt Is.

Sea Sport Boats, Inc.

Sea Vee Boats

Seaward Products

Seawolf Marine Mfg.

Sharpe Marine

Silver Ships, Inc.

Silverton Marine Corp.

Team Supreme

Thoroughbred Cruisers

Thunderbird Products

TOMCO Marine Group

Trans Fbgls. Boat Co.

Tri Tec Systems, Inc.

US Marine Corp.

WESCO (non-marine

 vehicle market)

Wood Mfg.Company

 DBA Ranger Boats

Units: 54,193

Problem: Potential fire risk if circuit breaker handle is held in the “on” position after the unit is tripped and the

circuit breaker contacts weld together; if the contacts weld and the short circuit is not corrected, heat may be

generated that may damage attached or adjacent wiring; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source present
10 Boating Safety Circular

LIFE JACKET RECALL

SOSpenders Corporation of Fruitland, Idaho is recalling approximately 7,200 automatic inflatable personal

floatation devices (PFDs). Approximately 300 defective Hammar units in one lot of 500 were loaded

incorrectly and will not inflate the vest. SOSpenders Corp. has made the decision to recall all Hammar

products for 100% safety inspection.

This unit malfunction was discovered by SOSpenders in-house testing and immediately communicated to the

appropriate individuals to take corrective action. SOSpenders has received no reports of units malfunctioning. No injuries have been reported.

The PFDs have the brand name SOSpenders. The affected PFDs can be identified by a Yellow Hammar

MA1 Manual/Automatic Inflator Cap:

The recalled vests include the following items and part numbers:

8030264 STD 38 MILLENIUM-WM 38HSTDM-W (PFD)

8030265 HAR 38 MILLENIUM-WM 38HHARM-W (PFD)

8030266 STD 38 MILLENIUM 38HSTDM (PFD)

8030267 HAR 38 MILLENIUM 38HHARM (PFD)

8030233 REARM 38 AUTO HAMMAR CMH38ARP (ACCESSORY)

8030313 COMMERCIAL VEST SOLAS F1 38CMH (PFD)

8030315 TACT VEST W/POC-AUTO HAM 38HTV/9-CG (PFD)

8030354 MILLENIUM ,AUT, LNG, BLK 38HSTDM/7 (PFD)

8030318 PRO 38 MILLENIUM 8HPROM (PFD)

8030268 TACT VEST W/POC-AUTO HAM 38HTV/9 (PFD)

8030316 ULTRA LITE 38 HAMMAR 38HUL/9 (PFD)

Consumers should stop using the vests and immediately.
Boating Safety Circular 11

(1) Follow the procedures provided by SOS at their website www.sospenders.com and click on “recall.”

(2) Contact SOSpenders customer service department at 1-800-858-5876 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

PST Monday through Friday for shipping instructions.

 SOS, Inc. indicated that approximately 300 defective Hammar inflators in one lot of 500 were assembled

incorrectly and will not inflate the PFD with CO2 gas either automatically or manually. Only oral inflation of the

PFDs with the incorrectly assembled inflators will provide any buoyancy to the user.

 Since there may be a significant risk of drowning if these PFDs are not inflated, SOS, Inc. has made the

decision to recall all products using the Hammar inflator for a 100% safety inspection. SOS, Inc. will apply an

additional marking on each inflator that passes this inspection.

 The Coast Guard points out that this recall demonstrates why it is so important for consumers to register

their inflatable PFDs or any consumer product with the manufacturer. When a safety recall such as this

is necessary, the manufacturer must have a registration on file to effectively contact affected consumers in a

timely manner.

 Unfortunately it appears that less than five percent (5%) of owners have registered their inflatable PFDs.

Therefore the Coast Guard strongly recommends that consumers always fill out and return the consumer registration card; regardless of the product. Such action promotes safety and provides econonic protection. Fortunately, it appears that West Marine, which sold most of these PFDs to recreational boaters, can identify about

75 percent (75%) of their customers. The affected PFDs have the brand name SOSPENDERS. These PFDs

can be identified by the Yellow Hammar MA1, Manual/Automatic Inflator Cap (see Figure 1):

Figure 1
12 Boating Safety Circular

DAVE’S CUSTOM BOATS

(El Cajon, CA)(02R0360S)

Year: Models delivered prior to 12/02/02

Models: 22 Extreme, 24 Extreme, 28 Extreme,

Mach 22, Mach 26, Mach F-26 and

Mach F-34 delivered prior to 12/02/02

Units: 213

Problem: Metallic objects can contact ungrounded

battery terminals; positive terminal of starter not

protected against shorting

GATOR BOATS

(Sullivan, MO)(02R0300S)

Year: 2001

Models: 2060

Units: 54

Problem: Inadequate opening/duct sizes in natural

ventilation system

GLASTRON BOATS

(Little Falls, MN)(030063T)

Year: 2003

Models: GX 225

Units: 95

Problem: Operator and passenger seat bases might

not be properly installed; possible personal injury to

user

JERSEY MARINE INDUSTRIES

(West Berlin, NJ)(02R0362S)

Year: 2003

Models: Silverhawk

Units: 44

Problem: Metallic fuel fill not grounded

KOHLER CO.

(Kohler, WI)(030088T)

Year: 1950 - 1989

Models: L600 or L654 gasoline engines:

2R, 2A, 2.5R, 2.5A, 3.5R, 3.5A, 4R,

4A, 5R, 5A, 6.5R, 6.5A, 7.5R, 7.5A

Problem: Failure of the black iron wet exhaust pipe

may cause carbon monoxide poisoning

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Waukegan, IL)(020139T)

Year: 2002

Models: 25 & 30 HP Johnson Outboards

Units: 1,046

Problem: Due to shift linkage misadjustment engines

might not have start-in-gear protection

BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL

PRODUCTS

(Sturtevant, WI)(020185S)

Year: 2002

Models: Fish Hawk 170CC, 180CC, 210CC,

230CC, 210WA, 230WA, 200BF &

220BF Sport Boats

Units: 465

Problem: Improper fuel hoses between the fuel

tank, squeeze bulb, fuel filter and engine

CRESTLINER, INC.

(Little Falls, MN)(020206S)

Year: 2001 & 2002

Models: 2001 & 2002 Sportfish 1850 and

Superhawk 1800 and 2002 Eagle 2300

Units: 1,217

Problem: Fuel tank hold down brackets may dig

into top surface of tank during expansion causing fuel

leak; possible fire/explosion if ignition source present

CRUSADER ENGINES

(Sterling Heights, Michigan)(020198S)

Year: 2002 & 2003

Models: 5.0L MPI w/ aluminum hood and

5.7L MPI w/ aluminum hood

Units: 425

Problem: Possible arcing or open flame at the coil

wire connection to the ignition coil and/or distributor

cap; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source

present

CRUSADER ENGINES

(Sterling Heights, Michigan)(030013S)

Year: 2002 - 2003

Models: 8.1L MPI STD

8.1L MPI HO

Units: 218

Problem: Fuel line connections at fuel rail may not

be fully locked into place; potential fuel leak; possible

fire/explosion if ignition source present
Boating Safety Circular 13

LARSON BOATS

(Little Falls, MN)(030060T)

Year: 1999 - 2003

Models: Cabrio 333

Units: 90

Problem: Isolation bulkheads not properly sealed

and fuel vapors could reach areas containing electrical

equipment; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

MAXUM MARINE

(Salisbury, MD)(020202T)

Year: 2000 & 2001

Models: 2955 SCR Sun Cruisers

Units: 453

Problem: Isolation bulkheads not properly sealed

and fuel vapors could reach areas containing electrical

equipment; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

PLEASURECRAFT ENGINE GROUP

(Little Mountain, SC)(020196S)

Year: 2002-2003

Models: 5.7/5.0L MPI w/ serial nos.

420733 - 430688

Units: 1093

Problem: Internal lead in coil wire not positioned

correctly; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor

source present

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

(Medina, MN)(020091T)

Year: 2002

Models: Virage i & Virage TXi Personal

Watercraft

Units: 3,458

Problem: Some fuel tanks may have a hole under

the fuel pump retaining nut threads; possible fire/

explosion if ignition source present

RINKER BOAT CO., INC.

(Syracuse, IN)(02R0311S)

Year: 2002

Models: 212 Captiva

Units: 1,081

Problem: Insufficient blower capacity in powered

ventilation system

SEA MAX

(Little Mountain, SC)(020197S)

Year: 2002-2003

Models: 5.7/5.0L MPI w/ serial nos.

225050 - 225200 - Model Year 2002

235026 - 235051 - Model Year 2003

Units: 50

Problem: Internal lead in coil wire not positioned

correctly; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor

source

SPLENDOR BOATS

(Silver Lake, IN)(02R0259S)

Year: 1998 - 2001

Models: 240 Platinum

Units: 79

Problem: Inadequate natural and powered

ventilation systems; battery switch not ignitionprotected

.

SUMERSET CUSTOM HOUSEBOATS

(Somerset, KY)(020189T)

Year: 1992 - 1999

Models: Various

Units: 252

Problem: Shore power service circuit breakers on

boats with dual shorepower option improperly wired

TRACKER MARINE L.P.

(Springfield, MO)(030015T)

Year: 2003

Models: Bass Buggy 18

 produced 9/3/02 - 2/25/03

Fishin Barge 21

 produced 8/10/02 - 2/25/03

Fishin Barge 25

 produced 8/10/02 - 2/25/03

220F, Grn, Blu

 produced 8/10/02 - 2/25/03

240F, Grn, Blu

 produced 8/10/02 - 2/25/03

Units: 762

Problem: Incorrectly installed fuel feed fitting;

potential fuel leakage; possible fire/explosion if ignition

source present
14 Boating Safety Circular

TRACKER MARINE L.P.

(Springfield, MO)(021065S)

Year: 2003

Models: Laker 14 & 1436AWS

Units: 541

Problem: Level Flotation

YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Cypress, CA)(030115T)

Year: 2003

Models: SR230 (SRT1000-B and C-B)

Sport Boats

Units: 452

Problem: Hose clamps on fuel tank vent hose and

fuel tank vent check valve cannot be tightened to

proper specification and fuel tank vent check valve

may have burrs on plastic fittings which could prevent

proper sealing allowing vapor to escape; possible fire/

explosion if ignition source present

YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Cypress, CA)(020072T)

Year: 2002

Models: GP1200A-A (“GP1200R”)

XA1200A-A (“XL1200”)

XA800A-A(“XLT800”)

Units: 2,097

Problem: Fuel sender assembly not adequately

clamped to its rubber fuel tank fitting allowing vapor

to escape; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Cypress, CA)(020128T)

Year: 2002

Models: FX1000-A & FX1000C-A

Units: 3,666

Problem: Fuel pump module not sealed properly to

fuel tank surface; potential for vapor to escape;

possible fire/explosion if ignition source present

YAMAHA MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Cypress, CA)(020176T)

Year: 2002

Models: FX1000C-A (FX140)

Units: 6,459

Problem: Wire harness inside air cleaner case may

interfere with throttle linkage and keep throttle open;

danger of collision

YAR-CRAFT, INC.

(Menominee, MI)(021067S)

Year: 2001

Models: 1785 Wrangler DC

Units: 48

Problem: Level Flotation

The following are the other campaigns still in

progress that began before January 2002:

AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(Brea, CA)(010159T)

Year: 2001 & 2002

Models: 2001 DF90 with serial nos.:

09001F-151013 through 152573

2001 DF115 with serial nos.:

11501F-151046 through 153960

2002 DF90 with serial nos.:

09001F-251066 through 251077

2002 DF115 with serial nos.:

11501F-251257 through 251314

2002 DF115 with serial nos.:

11501F-251527 through 251540

Units: 2,701

Problem: Under rapid acceleration clutch rod may

contact steering bracket bending clutch rod; clutch

shaft holder may break causing loss of shift control;

possibility of collision

ARCTIC CAT, INC.

Thief River Falls, MN (010003T)

Year: 1999

Models: Tigershark 1100 LI

Units: 522

Problem: Throttle bodies may wear/corrode

causing stiff throttle operation and return; may result in

throttle remaining in open position; danger of collision

ARCTIC CAT, INC.

Thief River Falls, MN (000201T)

Year: 1997

Models: Tigershark:

 Daytona 770 and 1000,

Monte Carlo 640, 770 & 1000

Units: 9,436

Problem: A crack may develop in base of fuel filler

neck permitting liquid fuel or vapor leakage; possible

fire/explosion if ignition source present
Boating Safety Circular 15

BACK COUNTRY BY CHAMPION

(Sarasota, FL)(991626S)

Year: 1996 - 1999

Models: 151 Pro Guide

Units: 55

Problem: Level Flotation

BAJA BOATS INC.

(Bucyrus, OH)(970122T)

Year: 1997 & 1998

Models: 1997: 232, 252, 272, 302,

192 Islander, 212 Islander,

232 Islander, 252 Islander,

272 Islander, 24 Outlaw, 32 Outlaw,

38 Special, 29 Outlaw (Single),

29 Outlaw (Twin), Hammer, 36 Outlaw

1998: 272, 322, 212 Islander,

232 Islander, 252 Islander,

Hammer, 29 Outlaw (Twin),

38 Special, 36 Outlaw

Units: 353

Problem: Captains Call exhaust wiring routed too

close to engine; insulation may melt causing a short

circuit; possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source

present

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(000145T)

Year: 2000

Models: GTX, XP, RX DI, GTX DI, AND LRV

(5513, 5514, 5544, 5545, 5646, 5649,

5651, 5653, 5655, 5656, 5659,

5669 and 5688)

Units: 3,476

Problem: Clip securing air intake silencer could

release and allow gaskets to fall into throttle bodies;

for DI (direct injection) models only, fogging tube

inside air silencer could also be drawn into rear

throttle body; loss of speed control and possible

collision

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(000124T)

Year: 2000

Models: Sea Doo RX 5513 and 5514

Units: 1,112

Problem: Sponsons may loosen and fall reducing

steering ability at high speed; possible danger of

collision

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(980165T)

Year: 1998

Models: Speedster and Challenger 1800

 jetboats

Units: 2,265

Problem: Seat swivel plates may crack or break;

operator or passengers may fall; potential for injury

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(000087T)

Year: 2000

Models: GTX and GTX RFI

Units: 10,273

Problem: Fuel fill adjacent to ventilation system

opening; operator could inadvertently fill engine

compartment with fuel; possible fire/explosion if

ignition source present

BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORP. OF

AMERICA

(Benton, IL)(000125T)

Year: 2000

Models: Sea Doo RX DI and GTX DI

Units: 3,272

Problem: Possible fuel leak between direct air

injector and fuel rail assembly; possible fire or

explosion if ignition source present

GLASTRON BOATS

(Little Falls, MN)(010093S)

Models: I/O powered:

1999-2001 175SX

2000-2001 185SX

2000-2001 195SX

2000-2001 205SX

Units: 4,464

Problem: Basic Flotation

GRAND BANKS YACHTS LTD.

(Norwalk, CT)(010161T)

Year: 1999 - 2001

Models: East Bay 49 with hull nos.: 001-015,

017-035, 042 and 043

Grand Banks 66 with hull no.: 002

Units: 38

Problem: Seal housing on propeller shaft may crack

in cold weather allowing water to enter engineroom
16 Boating Safety Circular

HAMILTON JET

(Seattle, WA)(000197T)

Year: 1998

Models: HJ 212 steering assemblies with

serial nos.: 0001-2114

HJ 213 steering assemblies with

serial nos.: 0001-0299

Units: 1,261

Problem: Cracks in steering nozzle; possible

steering failure and danger of collision

HAMILTON JET

(Seattle, WA)(000085T)

Year: 1998 & 1999

Models: HJ 212 with serial nos. 964 - 1774

HJ 213 with serial nos. 001 - 234

Units: 676

Problem: Flange inserts on some jet units are

oversized and may become stiff or stick under certain

circumstances; possible steering failure and danger of

collision

HARRIS KAYOT

(Fort Wayne, IN)(000248T)

Year: 1998 - 2001

Models: Pontoon boats equipped with Mercury

Outboards with the following last four

characters in their HINs: K798 - J001.

Units: 1,081

Problem: Wire on ignition interrupter switch may

not be connected; emergency shutoff switch might not

operate

KAWASAKI MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Santa Ana, CA)(000225T)

Year: 1999 & 2000

Models: JH 1200-A1 AND JH 1200-A2

Units: 8,749

Problem: On 1999 JH 1200-A1 and 2000 JH

1200-A2, end of fuel tank vent hose can drop into

engine compartment, if incorrectly installed during

vessel pre-sale setup or during service involving

steering column. Pressure buildup in tank can expel

gasoline or fumes from vent hose into engine

compartment. Also, under certain conditions, with

vent hose in correct position, fuel can be expelled

onto deck and run into engine compartment;

possible fire/explosion if ignition source present.

KAWASAKI MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Santa Ana, CA)(990186T)

Year: 1998 & 1999

Models: 1998 JT1100-B1 (7,986 units)

1998 JH1100-A3 (5,982 units)

1999 JT900-B1 (3,097 units)

1999 JT1100-B2 (4,193 units)

1999 JH1100-A4 (1,982 units)

Units: 23,240

Problem: Engine backfire can rupture fuel pump

diaphragm causing fuel leakage; possible fire/

explosion if ignition source present

KAWASAKI MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Santa Ana, CA)(010023T)

Year: 2000 & 2001

Models: JT-1100 C-1 (2000) & F-1 (2001)

Units: 6,065

Problem: Fuel pumps may be subject to corrosion

causing possible fuel leaks into engine compartment;

possible fire/explosion if ignition source present

KAWASAKI MOTOR CORP., U.S.A.

(Santa Ana, CA)(990167T)

Year: 1999

Models: Ultra 150

Units: 2,859

Problem: Overtightening of steering cable mounting

nut may cause nut to fail causing loss of steering

control

LARSON BOATS

(Little Falls, MN)(010066S)

Year: 2001

Models: SEI 180 BR I/O, SEI 190 BR SF

SEI 190 BR I/O and LXI 190 BR I/O

Units: 697

Problem: Basic Flotation

LOWE SUNCRUISER PONTOON BOATS

(Syracuse, IN)(010104T)

Year: 2000 & 2001

Models: Boats equipped with Fikes Plastics

fuel tanks with tank serial nos.

001431-003129

Units: 212

Problem: Fuel tank material degradation could lead

to cracking of the sidewall and leaks; possible fire/

explosion if ignition source present
Boating Safety Circular 17

MASTERCRAFT BOAT COMPANY

(Vonore, TN)(990151T)

Year: 1999

Models: Maristar 205V, ProStar 205 V &

X-Star

Units: 554

Problem: Possible friction between fuel tank and

shaft coupler may damage fuel tank; possible fire or

explosion if ignition source present

MAXUM MARINE

(Everett, WA)(010122T)

Year: 2001

Models: 2100 SD

Units: 91

Problem: Isolation bulkheads not properly sealed

and fuel vapors could reach areas containing electrical

equipment; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

MERCURY MARINE

(Fond du Lac, WI)(000247T)

Year: 2000 & 2001

Models: 240 HP M2 Jet Drive with serial nos.:

0E370718 to 0E394131

Units: 4,440

Problem: Potential short in voltage regulator;

possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source present

MERCURY MARINE

(Fond du Lac, WI)(010074T)

Year: 2001

Models: MCM 496 MAG Sterndrive Engines

MCM 496 MAG HO Sterndrive Engines

MIE 8.1S Horizon Inboard Engines

MIE 8.1S HO Inboard Engines

All have serial numbers in the range

between 0M025000 - 0M061418

Units: 2,501

Problem: Fuel line/ fuel rail outlet plug may not be

properly connected to fuel rail and may cause fuel

leakage; possible fire/explosion if ignition source

present

MERCURY MARINE

(Fond du Lac, WI)(010063T)

Year: 1999 & 2000

Models: 225/250 HP Mercury/Mariner

200/225 HP Optimax

3.0L Carb/Work versions

These are outboards with serial nos.:

0G927950 to 0T264046

Units: 14,108

Problem: Insufficient weld penetration between

bracket and shift cable attaching stud; potential loss of

shift control

MERCURY MARINE

(Fond du Lac, WI)(990173T)

Year: 1998 and 1999

Models: Mercury and Mariner 225/250 HP,

3.0 Litre (Carb/EFI) XL, CXL, XXL

and CXXL

3.0 Litre (OptiMax) XL, CXL, XXL

and CXXL with serial nos.:

0G644802 thru 0G870075

Units: 6,830

Problem: Steering arm attaching bolt may fail;

possible loss of steering control

MERCURY MARINE

(Fond du Lac, WI)(020177S)

Year: 2003

Models: Mercury Racing 575 Sci

Units: 128

Problem: Fuel line between fuel filter and throttle

bodies on some Mercury 575 Sci engines may crack

allowing fuel to leak; possible fire/explosion if ignition

source present

PRO-LINE BOATS

(Crystal River, FL)(980233T)

Models: 1997: 2810 W/A, 2700 Sport,

251 W/A

1998: MM2810W/A, SJ2700 Sport,

 WA251 W/A, WW2610 W/A

1999: MM2810 - W/A, SJ2700 Sport,

 WA251 - W/A, 2610 W/A

Units: 651

Problem: Sea Land sani pump used to drain

cockpit deck fish boxes may have a circuit board

subject to corrosion/short circuit
18 Boating Safety Circular

PRO-LINE BOATS

(Crystal River, FL)(990192T)

Year: 2000

Models: All boats with breaker box

 manufactured by ESI South, Inc.

Units: 147

Problem: Breaker box may contain non ignitionprotected circuit breakers; possible fire/explosion if

fuel or vapor source present

PURSUIT/S2 YACHTS, INC.

(Fort Pierce, FL)(000106S)

Year: 2000

Models: 2260 Denali w/ HINs:

SSUF2099G900 - SSUF2107K900

2460 Denali w/ HINs:

SSUF4362F900 - SSUF439IL900

Units: 39

Problem: Blower warning label missing

PURSUIT FISHING BOATS DIV. OF TIARA

YACHTS

(Ft. Pierce, FL)(980041T)

Year: 1995 - 1997

Models: 2870 Offshore & 2870 Walkaround

Units: 185

Problem: Novatron 110 V shore power units wired

incorrectly; possible shock hazard

RIVIERA CRUISER

(Columbia City, IN)(990117S)

Year: 1999

Models: Pontoon Boats equipped with built-in

Fikes Plastics Fuel Tanks w/ serial

nos: 904001 - 905159

Units: 97

Problem: Fuel tank leakage; possible fire or

explosion if ignition source present

SEA RAY BOATS

(Knoxville, TN)(970080T)

Year: 1997

Models: 190BR & 210BR

Units: 1,259

Problem: Abrasion of fuel vent line by alternator;

possible fire/explosion if ignition source present

SEA RAY BOATS

(Knoxville, TN)(010092S)

Year: 2001

Models: 225WE with hull nos.: 3016-3102,

3104-3109, 3111-3117, 3119-3126,

3128-3191, 3193-3200, 3202-3216,

3218-3231, 3234, 3236-3246,

3248-3263, 3265-3295, 3297-3307,

3310-3314

240DA with hull nos.: 3341-3358,

3361-3378, 3380, 3382, 3384-3385,

3387-3390, 3392-3419

240SD with hull nos.: 3358, 3568,

3571, 3575, 3580, 3585, 3590, 3595,

3596, 3600, 3602, 3605, 3609, 3613,

3618, 3619, 3626, 3630, 3636, 3638,

3642, 3643, 3647, 3654, 3656, 3658,

3664, 3666, 3670, 3671, 3675, 3682,

3684, 3686, 3692, 3694, 3698, 3699,

3703, 3710, 3712, 3714, 3720, 3722,

3726, 3727, 3731, 3738, 3740, 3742,

3748, 3750, 3753, 3756, 3760, 3763,

3767, 3770, 3774, 3777, 3781, 3784,

3788, 3791, 3792

245WE with hull nos.: 3158-3182,

3187-3188, 3202, 3206-3210, 3218,

3221-3222, 3229-3230, 3233-3235,

3237-3238

Units: 466

Problem: Potential fuel leak at fuel tank pickup

hose connection; possible fire/explosion if ignition

source present

SEA RAY BOATS

(Knoxville, TN)(010089S)

Year: See below

Models: 370 AC (1997 - 2000) (186 units)

400 DB (1996 - 2001) (500 units)

420 AC (1996 - 2001) (223 units)

450 EB (1998 - 2001) (132 units)

460 DA (1999 - 2001) (130 units)

480 DB (1998 - 2001) (313 units)

540 CMY (2001) (19 units)

540 DA (1998 - 2001) (150 units)

560 DB (1998 - 2001) (109 units)

580 SS (1997 - 2000) (35 units)

Units: See above

Problem: Lack of overcurrent protection could lead

to heat buildup in electrical wiring; possible fire/

explosion if fuel or vapor source present

CONTINUED ON PAGE 21
Boating Safety Circular 19

 Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 119/Friday, June 20, 2003/Rules and Regulations 36957

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 181

[USCG–2003–14272]

RIN 1625–AA53

Country of Origin Codes and Revision

of Regulations on Hull Identification

Numbers

AGENCY:Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes

to allow U.S. manufacturers of recreational boats to display a 2-character,

country of origin code before the 12-

character Hull Identification Number

(HIN) without separating the 2-character

code by means of borders or on a

separate label as is currently required by

the HIN regulations. The current

prohibition adversely affects U.S.

manufacturers who seek to export some

of their recreational boats. The removal

of the current restriction would allow

U.S. manufacturers to comply with the

International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) HIN standard,

without changing the information

collected by States on undocumented

vessels they register.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before September 18,

2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments

identified by the Coast Guard docket

number USCG–2003–14272 to the

Docket Management Facility at the U.S.

Department of Transportation. To avoid

duplication, please use only one of the

following methods:

 (1) Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001.

 (3) Fax: 202–493–2251.

 (4) Delivery: 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.

 (5) Federal Rulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this proposed

rule, call Mr. Alston Colihan, Office of

Boating Safety, Coast Guard, telephone

202–267–0984. If you have questions on

viewing or submitting material to the

docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Access to

Comments

 We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related materials. All

comments received will be posted,

without change, to http://dms.dot.gov

and will include any personal

information you have provided. We

have an agreement with the Department

of Transportation (DOT) to use the

Docket Management Facility. Please see

the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

 Submitting comments. If you submit a

comment, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (USCG–2003–14272),

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 electronic

means, mail, fax, or delivery to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please

submit your comments and material by

only one means. If you submit them by

mail or delivery, submit them in an

unbound format, no larger than 812 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. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

 Viewing comments and documents:

To view comments, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, go to

http://dms.dot.gov at any time and

conduct a simple search using the

docket number. You may also visit the

Docket Management Facility in 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.

 Privacy Act. Anyone can search the

electronic form of all 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 the Department of

Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement

in the Federal Register published on

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for one to the Docket Management

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be

beneficial. If we determine that 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

In 1995, the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO)

issued a Hull Identification Number

standard (ISO 10087:1995(E)) consisting

of the same format as the existing Coast

Guard 12-character HIN (manufacturer’s

identification, serial number, month of

manufacture, year of manufacture, and

model year) preceded by a 2-character

country code and a hyphen. Under the

ISO HIN standard, a boat made in the

U.S. for export to a foreign country

would bear a HIN such as:

 US–ABC12345G303.

 Boat manufacturers in the United

States that export to Europe started

using the ISO HIN standard beginning

with the 1996 model year. According to

ISO 10087:1995(E), paragraph (4),

Composition of HIN, “A HIN shall

consist of 14 consecutive characters

plus a hyphen * * *.” But our

regulation for displaying information

near the HIN, 33 CFR 181.27, states, “If

additional information is displayed on

the boat within two inches of the hull

identification number, that information

must be separated from the hull

identification number by means of

borders or must be on a separate label

so that it will not be interpreted as part

of the hull identification number.”

While the ISO HIN standard includes a

paragraph with language that is nearly

identical to § 181.27, these ISO

requirements do not apply to the

country code and hyphen, which

precede our 12-character HIN.

 The American Boat and Yacht

Council (ABYC) develops voluntary

consensus safety standards for the

design, construction, equipage,

maintenance, and repair of small craft.

An ABYC Technical Committee

studying the ISO HIN standard and our

HIN standard concluded that the

differing requirements create a problem

for U.S. builders exporting to Europe.

One large U.S. manufacturer that

exports to Europe pointed out that use

of a separate tape to create the border
20 Boating Safety Circular

required by our HIN standard often

results in misalignment and other flaws

that may be confused with attempts to

alter an HIN. This proposal was

discussed at the October 29, 2001

meeting of the National Boating Safety

Advisory Council and there were no

objections by State Boating Law

Administrators in attendance at the

meeting. (66 FR 49445, September 27,

2001). The NBSAC unanimously passed

a resolution requesting the Coast Guard

to immediately pursue rulemaking for

an exception to current regulations to

allow the USA HIN system to conform

to the ISO HIN standard while still

allowing the states to not require the

“Country Code” in their registration

process.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

 This rule would relieve manufacturers

of recreational boats who sell both

internationally and domestically of the

burden of separating the country of

origin code for the United States,

“US-”, from the other 12 characters in

a HIN by means of borders or a separate

label. Any other information would still

have to be separated from characters in

the HIN by means of borders or a

separate label.

Regulatory Evaluation

 This proposed rule is not a

“significant regulatory action” under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office

of Management and Budget has not

reviewed it under that Order. It is not

“significant” under the regulatory

policies and procedures of the

Department of Homeland Security

(DHS).

 We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DHS is unnecessary. Allowing

manufacturers to separate the Country

of Origin Code without the use of

borders or a separate label would relieve

a burden and thereby reduce the costs

of complying with the HIN display

requirement.

Small Entities

 Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term “small entities” comprises

small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

 The Small Business Administration

(SBA) has set up size standards for each

SIC code based on the number of

employees or annual receipts. The only

type of small entity that this rule would

affect would be small businesses. There

were 4,420 U.S. manufacturers of

recreational boats in 2002, an estimated

80 percent of which qualify as small

businesses by the size standards of the

SBA. However, we have observed that

the businesses we have identified as

small do not manufacture as many boats

as their larger competitors. In addition,

most of the businesses we have

identified as small do not export to the

European market and therefore would

not follow the ISO HIN format.

 Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed

rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If you think

that your business, organization, or

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a

small entity and that this rule would

have a significant economic impact on

it, please submit a comment to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES. In your

comment, explain why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

 Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so

that they can better evaluate its effect

onthem and participate in the

rulemaking. If the rule would affect your

small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have

questions concerning its provisions or

options for compliance, please contact

Mr. Alston Colihan, Project Manager,

Office of Boating Safety, by telephone at

(202) 267–0981 or by e-mail at

acolihan@comdt.uscg.mil.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on State or local governments and

would either preempt State law or

impose a substantial direct cost of

compliance on them. We have analyzed

this proposed rule under that Order and

have determined that it does not have

implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Though this proposed rule would not

result in such an expenditure, we do

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere

in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

 This proposed rule would not affect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

 This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce

burden.

Protection of Children

 We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and would not create an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that might disproportionately

affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

 This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications under Executive

Order 13175, Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, because it would not

have a substantial direct effect on one

or more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

36958 Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 119/Friday, June 20, 2003/Rules and Regulations
Boating Safety Circular 21

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. The Administrator of the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs has not designated it as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

 We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Commandant Instruction

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast

Guard in complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and

have concluded that there are no factors

in this case that would limit the use of

a categorical exclusion under section

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this

rule is categorically excluded, under

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(a) of the

Instruction, from further environmental

documentation. The proposed rule to

remove the requirement to separate the

2-character country of origin code from

the 12-character HIN by means of

borders or on a separate label relates to

the documentation of vessels and is not

expected to have any environmental

impact.

 A draft “Environmental Analysis

Check List” and a draft “Categorical

Exclusion Determination” are available

in the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section

will be considered before we make the

final decision on whether the rule

should be categorically excluded from

further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 181

 Labeling, Marine safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

 For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 181 as follows:

PART 181—MANUFACTURER

REQUIREMENTS

 1. The authority citation for part 181

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302 and 4310; Pub.

L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; Department

of Homeland Security Delegation No.

0170.

 2. Revise § 181.27 to read as follows:

§ 181.27 Information displayed near hull

identification number.

 With the exception of the characters

“US-”, which constitute the country of

origin code for the United States, if

information is displayed on the boat

within 2 inches of the hull

identification number (HIN), that

information must be separated from the

HIN by means of borders or must be on

a separate label, so that it will not be

interpreted as part of the hull

identification number.

Dated: June 12, 2003.

David S. Belz,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,

Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. 03–15640 Filed 6–19–03; 8:45 am]

 Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 119/Friday, June 20, 2003/Rules and Regulations 36959

STARDUST CRUISERS, INC.

(Monticello, KY)(010047T)

Year: 1997 - 2000

Models: Houseboats with Mathers multistation

propulsion control system with hull

nos.: TKZ00850 - TKZ01100

Units: 343

Problem: Engine control relays not ignition-proof;

possible fire/explosion if fuel or vapor source present

SUMERSET CUSTOM HOUSEBOATS

(Somerset, KY)(010012T)

Year: 1984 - 1997

Models: Various

Units: 377

Problem: Routing of generator exhaust beneath

swim platform causes dangerously high concentrations

of carbon monoxide

TRACKER MARINE L.P.

(Springfield, MO)(961490S)

Year: 1996

Models: Super GV14T with HINs:

BUJ16639H596 - BUJ36157E696

Units: 87

Problem: Level Flotation

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, INC.

(Chesapeake, VA)(980145T)

Year: 1997

Models: BY engines w/ serial nos.:

4110155491 - 4110159682

Units: 2,000

Problem: Improperly machined fuel pump inlet

fitting may cause fuel leakage; possible fire/

explosion if ignition source present

WELLCRAFT MARINE CORP.

(Sarasota, FL)(010147S)

Year: 2000 & 2001

Models: Wellcraft and Aquasport models

equipped with gasoline generators

Units: 187

Problem: Fuel filter fails to meet Federal

requirements

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 19
22 Boating Safety Circular

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 84 and 183

46 CFR Part 25

[USCG–1999–6580]

RIN 2115–AF70

Certification of Navigation Lights for

Uninspected Commercial Vessels and

Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requiring

domestic manufacturers of vessels to

install only certified navigation lights on

all newly manufactured uninspected

commercial vessels and recreational

vessels. This rule aligns the

requirements for these lights with those

for inspected commercial vessels and

with requirements for all other

mandatory safety equipment carried on

board all vessels. The Coast Guard

expects the resulting reduction in the

use of noncompliant lights to improve

safety on the water.

DATES: This final rule is effective

November 1, 2002. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in the rule is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of November

1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–6580 and are

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 rule, call

Richard Blackman, Project Manager,

Office of Boating Safety, Coast Guard,

by telephone at 202–267–6810 or by email at rblackman@comdt.uscg.mil. If

you have questions on viewing the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

 The Coast Guard published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to

establish requirements for approval,

certification, installation, and

performance of navigation lights on

vessels less than 20 meters in length in

the Federal Register on September 7,

1978 (43 FR 39946), and a supplemental

notice on December 29, 1980 (45 FR

85468). It published a notice

withdrawing the proposed rulemaking

in the Federal Register on January 7,

1982 (47 FR 826). The proposed rule

was withdrawn because a newly

established voluntary standard and

Coast Guard enforcement policies were

deemed sufficient.

 On October 9, 1997, the Coast Guard

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 52673) a request for comments on

whether navigation lights on

uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels need to be

regulated. We received 34 comments.

On August 4, 2000, we published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

entitled Certification of Navigation

Lights for Uninspected Commercial

Vessels and Recreational Vessels in the

Federal Register (65 FR 47936). We

received 11 comments on the proposed

rule. No public hearing was requested

and none was held.

Background and Purpose

 The rule will direct manufacturers of

uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels to install only

navigation lights certified and labeled as

meeting the technical requirements of

the Navigation Rules. It will standardize

the navigation light requirement for

uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels with the

requirement for inspected commercial

vessels. This action is consistent with

the treatment for all other items of safety

equipment.

 Previously, only lights specifically

manufactured for inspected commercial

vessels were regulated. These

regulations appear in Title 46 CFR

subchapter J-Electrical Engineering, and

they state in part that each light must

“be certified by an independent

laboratory to the requirements of

[Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)]

1104 or an equivalent standard” and be

so labeled. The “independent

laboratory” must be recognized by the

Coast Guard as bonafide and have been

placed on a list, which is available from

G–MSE–3 at U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001.

 Rulemakings to establish regulatory

controls of navigation lights on

uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels were proposed in

September 1978 and December 1980.

They were withdrawn in January 1982

because a newly established voluntary

standard and Coast Guard enforcement

policies were deemed sufficient to

eliminate the need for the regulation.

However, by 1997, several entities

concerned with recreational boating

safety were calling for regulations.

 Before April 1997, a manufacturer of

navigation lights for uninspected

commercial vessel and recreational

vessels could voluntarily apply for a

“Letter of Acceptance” from the U.S.

Coast Guard for its light models. The

Coast Guard would compare a

laboratory report for each model sent by

the manufacturer with the technical

requirements of the International and

Inland Navigation Rules (together

referred to as the “Navigation Rules’’). If

the reported data indicated that the light

met the requirements of the Navigation

Rules, the Coast Guard would grant a

“Letter of Acceptance,” allowing the

manufacturer to label the light as “U.S.

Coast Guard Accepted.” The public

often interpreted the acceptance label as

meaning that a light was “U.S. Coast

Guard Approved.”

 To eliminate the confusion, the Coast

Guard stopped issuing Letters of

Acceptance in April 1997. Consequently,

vessel manufacturers, owners,

surveyors, vessel inspectors,

and boarding officials could rely only

on a statement from the navigation light

manufacturer that a model of light

complied with the technical

requirements of the Navigation Rules.

In 1997 the National Boating Safety

Advisory Council (NBSAC)—

representing operators and

manufacturers of recreational vessels,

State boating officials, and national

boating organization—and the National

Association of State Boating Law

Administrators (NASBLA) passed

resolutions asking the Coast Guard to

require that navigation lights installed

on recreational vessels offered for sale

to the public be certified. The

Navigation Safety Advisory Council

(NAVSAC) passed a similar resolution

relating to uninspected commercial

vessels. In the report, “Recreational

Boat Collision Accident Research,” UL

recommended that the Coast Guard take

stronger measures to ensure that

navigation lights installed in recreational

vessels meet the requirements

established by the Navigation Rules.

 A request for comments on the

proposed rulemaking was published in

the Federal Register on October 9,

1997. State law-enforcement personnel,

vessel owners, marine professionals

(manufacturers and marine surveyors),

standard-setting organizations,

manufacturers of navigation lights, and

55086 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations
Boating Safety Circular 23

a laboratory testing navigation lights

submitted comments. Of the 34

respondents, 28 favored the rule. Some

expressed concern about installing

lights in vessels with bow-high cruising

trim angles that tend to obstruct

sidelight visibility. While it would not

require certification of navigation light

installations, the rule will require that

the installed lights be certified as

compliant with the visibility

requirements established by the

Navigation Rules. A complete

discussion of these comments was

included in the NPRM, which may be

found in the docket at the locations

listed under ADDRESSES.

 In its response to the October 1997

request for comments, UL stated that

during the past 20 years compliance

with the Navigation Rules for navigation

lights has steadily declined. UL stated

that about half of the lights tested have

failed to meet minimum performance

requirements.

 To address this decline in

compliance, the rule requires that vessel

manufacturers install only lights that are

certified. The new requirement will

provide evidence of compliance to

vessel manufacturers, surveyors,

owners, inspectors, and boarding

officials. It includes the same

requirements as those for navigation

lights for inspected commercial vessels;

however, the light test requirements are

less stringent. It also aligns with the

International Navigation Rule

requirement (COLREGS) for “Approval”

(33 CFR, subchapter D, Annex I.)

 The rule does not apply to the

replacement of existing navigation lights

on vessels completed before the

designated effective date.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

 Respondents to the NPRM published

August 4, 2000, included State lawenforcement officials, a marine safety

service, a tug operator, several tug and

tow operation companies, and two

waterways associations representing

the towing industry. Of the nine

respondents, four favored the

rulemaking.

 All opposing comments came from

representatives of the towing industry.

Some cited the expense of certifying

barge mooring lights; however, barge

mooring lights are outside the scope of

this rule because they are not generally

installed by the builder.

 Other comments requested that

commercial vessel lights be

grandfathered. Although the NPRM did

not specify that this rulemaking applied

to only newly manufactured vessels,

that was the original intent. This has

been clarified in the final rule by adding

an applicability section to the new

subpart 25.10 in 46 CFR. We also added

a definition section to the new subpart

25.10. Furthermore, only uninspected

commercial vessels and recreational

vessels are within the rule’s scope, as

inspected commercial vessels are

covered in other regulations.

 Another comment recommended that

when non-certified lights need to be

replaced that they be replaced with

certified lights. The Coast Guard

disagrees with this comment. A planned

amendment to Navigation Rule 38 will

grandfather all existing lights, whether

installed or on the shelf, implying that

original equipment may be replaced in

kind.

 Comments also expressed concern

about bulb “monopolies” resulting from

this rulemaking. The labeling

requirements call for “identification of

the bulb used in the compliance test.”

Although “identification” will include

bulb make along with specifications

regarding wattage, rated voltage, and

filament configuration, this rule does

not preclude the use of any make bulb

that allows the performance

requirements of the light to be satisfied.

 One towing company cited lack of

enforcement of the Navigation Rules as

the crux of the problem while another

objected to using “pre-focus lamps”

(lamps with screened lenses designed to

meet the sector requirements) rather

than “incandescent rough service

lamps.” Neither of these comments are

within the scope of this rule. However,

the intent of this rulemaking is to

discourage the use of non-compliant

lights on uninspected commercial

vessels and recreational vessels as a

step in enforcing the Navigation Rules.

A requirement for “approval,” or thirdparty certification, has always existed in

the International Navigation Rules. The

intent to establish a similar requirement

in the Inland Rules is evidenced by

Inland Rule, Annex I, 84.25 Approval,

currently marked “reserved.” This rule

satisfies that intent.

 Additionally, the need for this rule is

reflected in a memo from Marine Safety

Office, New Orleans to the Executive

Director, Navigation Safety Advisory

Committee that details problems

associated with lights noncompliant

with the International Navigation Rules

and the Inland Rules and includes

accident examples implicating improper

navigation lights. This memo has been

placed in the docket for this rulemaking

as supplemental information and may

be viewed at the locations listed on the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

 Of those favoring the rulemaking, a

comment from a State law-enforcement

agency reported that a significant

number of collisions occur during the

hours of darkness or reduced visibility,

and that not seeing the other vessel’s

navigation lights is commonly cited as

the cause. The U.S. Coast Guard agrees

with this comment and has placed a

letter from the City of Fort Lauderdale

and the U.S. Coast Guard’s response in

the docket for this rulemaking as

supplemental information. The letter

refers to a horrendous nighttime

collision in November 1997, which

prompted an accident record review

that caused city officials to question the

adequacy of the navigation lights.

 One comment recommended a more

stringent labeling requirement. The

Coast Guard agrees and has amended

the labeling requirement to read that the

label must be permanent and indelible

and that it be visible without removing

or disassembling the light. Another

comment favoring the rulemaking stated

that UL 1104 is too stringent as a testing

standard. The Coast Guard also agrees

with this comment. ABYC A–16, the

most basic standard, has been

substituted for UL 1104.

 The aforementioned comments,

combined with those received from UL

in response to our original request for

comments on October 9, 1997, indicate

substantial support for the rulemaking.

The UL comments state that more than

half of the lights for small craft, which

are not regulated, do not comply with

minimum Navigation Rule

requirements, but most regulated lights,

that is, those for commercial vessels, do.

 The new rule will be placed in Title

33 CFR, Part 183, subpart M, and not

subpart I. We noticed after publication

of the NPRM that subpart I applies only

to gasoline-powered vessels. To ensure

that the regulation properly applies to

all uninspected commercial and

recreational vessels, as originally stated

in the preamble to the NPRM (65 FR

47938), we are recodifying the

regulation in a new subpart. This has

required that we draft new applicability

and definitions sections to be placed in

subpart M. These additions do not

change the rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

 This rule is not a ‘significant

regulatory action’ under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of

that Order. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed

this rule under that Order. Since we

 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations 55087
24 Boating Safety Circular

expect the economic effect of this rule to

be very minimal, a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is not necessary.

Costs of the Rule

 (1) Manufacturers of navigation lights

will incur initial costs for laboratory

tests to certify that their lights comply

with Navigation Rules. This may result

in a minor increase in the market price

for certified lights. Navigation light

manufacturers will pass these costs on

to vessel manufacturers. In turn, the

vessel manufacturers will charge

consumers more. We conclude that

these increases should be so small that

their effect on vessel manufacturers and

consumers will be negligible.

 Most recreational vessel

manufacturers install navigation lights

on their vessels. We have discovered

Types of light X No. of models X No. of manufacturers X Cost per test for = Total cost

each model

8 10 9 $400 $288,000

 To account for the current value of

benefits and costs in the future, we

determined the present value of this

cost to 2001 through discounting. The

present value represents the expected

value of any benefits or costs-one-time

or recurring-discounted by the interest

rate compounded over the period of

analysis. The Office of Management and

Budget requires that all Federal

Agencies, including the Department of

15

n=2

[(no. of manufacturers) x (no. of models) x (testing cost per light)]/(1.07)n Σ

 We know that the nine manufacturers

of navigation lights introduce three new

models each year with a testing cost of

15

n=2

[(9) x (3) x ($400)]/(1.07)n Σ = $88,272.00 = Partial Cost 2

Transportation, use a standard discount

rate of 7 percent, which we incorporate

into our cost analysis. A partial

calculation of the total cost of the rule

is therefore the following:

($288,000)/(1.07)1 = $269,158.88 =

Partial Cost 1

 This figure is the one-time testing cost

for the total of all existing models of

lights occurring during the first year of

the regulation. If a manufacturer decides

to introduce a new model of light, that

$400 per model. We can say that the

cost associated with testing three new

models each year can be calculated by

The present value of the total testing

over 15 years is therefore:

$269,158.88 + $88,272.00 =

$357,430.88

(2) New labeling requirements for the

certified lights will add to the cost of the

regulation. Much of the verification will

be printable on an insert with the

package, or on a sticker (described in

Title 33 CFR 183.810). This rule will not

that eight types of lights are now on the

market, and each light manufacturer

may make multiple models of each type.

Our survey of available lights

determined that each manufacturer

produces an average of 10 models for

each type and introduces 3 new models

a year. Certification will require that a

representative light of each model pass

a performance test before it is marketed.

Specifically, we identified nine

domestic manufacturers of lights that

this rule might affect. To conduct a cost

analysis involving these nine

manufacturers we must allow a one-year

delay in the effective date of this rule.

The one-year delay will allow the

navigation light manufacturers time to

alter their products and procedures to

meet certification requirements.

Consequently, initial costs will not

begin to incur until the year 2002, when

the rule becomes effective. Given that 3

new models are introduced each year,

involve modification of the package to

accommodate the labeling. Using

estimates from labeling companies, we

have determined that manufacturers

will pay about $240 for 1,000 labels.

Since the Notice of Proposal for

Rulemaking, we have obtained a more

accurate cost for labels and have

revised our analysis to include $240 for

labeling costs in the formula. When

we will set a period of 15 years over

which the analysis of the impacts of this

rule will span. For the first year, 2002,

we have analyzed the cost of certifying

currently available models. For the

remaining fourteen years, 2003–2016,

we analyze the cost of certifying new

models.

 An e-mail exchange between the

Office of Boating Safety and a

navigation light manufacturer regarding

costs associated with this rule can be

found in the docket for this rulemaking.

In conversations with UL and Imanna

Laboratory, testing laboratories

approved by the Coast Guard, we

developed an estimate of $500 for a

performance test of each model. Volume

discounts for multiple model tests from

these laboratories will decrease the cost

of each model to $400. We can therefore

calculate a partial cost of the rule as

follows.

model will also have to be tested by an

independent laboratory approved by the

Coast Guard before it can be marketed.

When calculating costs, we must also

account for the three new models of

lights that each manufacturer sends

yearly to the market. In order to perform

this calculation we sum the cost over

the remaining 14 years using a discount

rate of 7 percent through the following

formula:

inserting the number of manufacturers,

number of models, and testing costs

into the above equation,

computing labeling costs, we make the

following assumptions: each model will

need 1000 labels, each of 9 manufacturers

produces 10 models of each of 6 light

types, and each manufacturer introduces

3 new models per year. We first compute

the one-time cost of labeling for the 10

models of each type of light.

55088 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations
Boating Safety Circular 25

 In computing the cost of labeling we

must also include a one-time $45 plate

charge for each model. This means that

10 ×9 ×8 ×45 = $32,400 must be added to

$172,800 for obtaining $205,500 as

the labeling cost for the existing ten

models. The present value of this cost

is $205,500/1.07 or $192,056.

15

n=2

[(9 manufacturers x 3 new models x $240)]/(1.07)n Σ = $52,963.

Calculating labeling costs for the three new models would again require us to add the one-time cost of the plate.

15

n=2

[(9 manufacturers x 3 new models x $45)]/(1.07)n Σ = $695.14.

 The total cost of labeling would

therefore be $192,056 + 52,963 + 695.14

or $245,714.14. This represents Partial

Cost 3. Finally we can say that the

present value of the total cost of the rule

is:

Partial Cost 1 + Partial Cost 2 + Partial

 Cost 3 = $269,158.88 + $88,272.00

 + $245,714.14 = $60,3145.02

Benefits of the Rule

 (1) Certification will place navigation

lights under regulatory control

comparable to that affecting all other

items of mandatory safety equipment.

This will result in a general

improvement in reliability, quality, and

effectiveness of domestic and imported

lights available to domestic

manufacturers of vessels.

 (2) This rule will discourage the

practice of installing lights, custommade or other, that are not compliant

with the Navigation Rules. Navigation

lights are safety equipment with the

designated purpose of preventing

collisions. According to the 2000

Boating Accident Reporting Database

(BARD) statistics collected by the U.S.

Coast Guard, accidents due to collisions

with another vessel account for 35

percent of all reported boating accidents

occurring over the year. These collisions

lead to fatalities and injuries as well as

property damage. Consequently,

fatalities and injuries due to a collision

with another vessel comprise around 10

percent of all reported fatalities and 32

percent of all reported injuries arising

from recreational boating accidents.

These BARD statistics also indicate that

accidents involving a collision with

another vessel result in property

damages amounting to $8,735,300. The

intent of this regulation is to reduce

these numbers and lessen the costs

society pays in terms of property

damage, lives lost, or injuries when

collisions occur.

 (3) Lack of compliance with rules for

navigation lights has also led to recalls

of certain recreational vessels. Under

the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, the

U.S. Coast Guard can declare noncomplaint lights as “defective” once

they are installed. Recreational boats

with defective items are subject to recall

completely at the vessel manufacturers’

expense. According to U.S Coast Guard

data on recalls, recreational vessels of

13 different makes have been recalled as

a result of the navigation lights failing

to comply with the Navigation Rules

since 1990. This regulation would

therefore minimize the recall cost

burden placed on vessel manufacturers

by assuring them that a light meets the

Navigation Rules requirements before

they begin installation.

 (4) Certification will also facilitate

exports to countries enforcing the

requirement of the COLREGS for

approval of navigation lights.

Small Entities

 Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered

whether this rule would have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term “small entities” comprises

small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations independently owned and

operated and not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000.

We identified nine manufacturers who

could be affected by this rule. Four out

of the nine manufacturers qualify as

small businesses by the size standards

of the Small Business Association

(SBA). However, we observed that the

four businesses we identified as small

entities offer fewer models of each type

of light than their larger competitors.

These 4 manufacturers offer between 1

and 5 models of each type, which is

well below the average of 10 models

each. Therefore, we do not believe that

they will bear a disproportionate

amount of the burden of this rule. We

have found that these four manufacturers have annual revenues of $2.5m-

$5.0m; $5.0m-$10m; $10m-$20m;

and $20m-$50m. The greatest possible

cost for testing and labeling incurred by

these four light manufacturers would be

$18,000, or $685 (testing + labeling

costs) × 6 light types x 5 models per

type. In addition to this, if they each test

at least two new models per year then

they will have to bear an extra $1,280,

or $685 x 2. A total of $19,200 is well

below 5 percent of the revenue of even

the smallest company, indicating that

this regulation will have a negligible

effect on revenues to these small

businesses. We expect prices in the

industry will remain stable allowing

companies to competitively enter the

industry. Therefore, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

 Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations 55089

Types of light X No. of models X No. of manufacturers X Cost per test for = Total cost

each model

8 10 9 $240 $172,800

 The cost of labeling for the three new

models of lights introduced can be

computed as follows:
26 Boating Safety Circular

121), we offered to assist small entities

in understanding the rule so that they

could better evaluate its effects on them

and participate in the rulemaking.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If

you wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

 This rule would call for a new

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44

U.S.C. 3501–3520]. As defined in 5 CFR

1320.3(c), “collection of information”

comprises reporting, recordkeeping,

monitoring, posting, labeling, and other

similar actions. The title and

description of the collections, a

description of those who perform them,

and an estimate of the total annual

burden follow. The estimate covers the

time for submitting a new model of light

to the third-party certifier and for

designing a label for each model of light.

Summary of the Collection of

Information

 The rule will impose a new burden of

collection of information on

manufacturers of navigational lights for

uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels. Each manufacturer

of the lights would incur a one-time

burden of submitting paperwork to the

third-party certifier and of designing

labeling for each model of light.

Need and Proposed Use for Information

 This collection of information is

necessary to accomplish the third-party

certification and the labeling. The thirdparty certifier would use the information

to document and test the models of

lights. Once the model had passed

performance testing, the manufacturer of

the light would design and provide a

label for its product so the consumer

would know that the product was

certified.

Description of Respondents

 The collection of information would

affect the current manufacturers of

navigational lights for recreational and

uninspected vessels. It would also

affect any future manufacturers that may

enter the market.

Number of Respondents

 There are nine manufacturers of lights

in the market. This collection of

information will affect them all.

Frequency of Response

 This collection would take place only

when a manufacturer undertook to place

a new light on the market.

Burden of Response

 We estimate that it would take one

employee about one hour to prepare the

paperwork to submit a light for

performance tests. He or she would be

an administrative assistant and, as such,

would cost around $24 an hour. If each

of these manufacturers submitted three

new models of lights for testing each

year, the burden for the submitted

would be 27 hours and $648.

 We also estimate that it would take

one employee about one hour to update

the labeling for each new model. He or

she, too, would cost around $24 an

hour. The burden for the labeling

requirement would likewise be 27 hours

and $648 if each of nine manufacturers

submitted 3 new models for testing each

year.

Estimate of Total Annual Burden

 Using the above estimates, the total

burden in hours would be 54 and the

total cost would be $1,296.

 As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

35)7(d), we have submitted a copy of

this rule to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for its review of the

collection of information. OMB has

approved the collection. The section

numbers are 33 CFR part 183 and 46

CFR 25. The corresponding approval

number from OMB is OMB Control

Number 2115–0645, which expires on

September 9, 2003. You are not required

to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

Control Number.

Federalism

 A rule has implications for federalism

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on State or local governments and

would either preempt State law or

impose a substantial direct cost of

compliance on them. We have analyzed

this rule under that Order and have

determined that it does not have

implications for federalism.

 It is well settled that States may not

regulate in categories reserved for

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also

well settled, now, that all of the

categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306,

3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,

construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel

qualification, and manning of vessels),

as well as the reporting of casualties and

any other category in which Congress

intended the Coast Guard to be the sole

source of a vessel’s obligations, are

within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of

the Supreme Court in the consolidated

cases of United States v. Locke and

Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120

S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Because the

States may not regulate within this

category, preemption under Executive

Order 13132 is not an issue.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Though this rule will not result in such

an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in this

preamble.

Taking of Private Property

 This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

 This 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 rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not create an environmental risk to

health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

 This 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.

55090 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations
Boating Safety Circular 27

Energy Effects

 We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

determined that it is not a “significant

energy action” under that order because

it is not a “significant regulatory action”

under Executive Order 12866 and is not

likely to have a significant adverse

effect on the supply, distribution, or use

of energy. It has not been designated by

the Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

 We have considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1.

paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

requirement for certification of

navigation lights should not have any

environmental impact. A Determination

of Categorical Exclusion is available in

the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 84

Navigation (water), Waterways.

33 CFR Part 183

Incorporation by reference, Marine

safety.

46 CFR Part 25

Fire prevention, Incorporation by

reference, Marine safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR parts 84 and 183, and 46 CFR part

25, as follows:

PART 84—ANNEX I: POSITIONING

AND TECHNICAL DETAILS OF LIGHTS

AND SHAPES

 1. The citation of authority for part 84

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2071; 49 CFR 1.46.

 2. Add § 84.25 to read as follows:

§ 84.25 Approval.

 The construction of lights and shapes

and the installation of lights on board

the vessel must satisfy the

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.

PART 183—BOATS AND ASSOCIATED

EQUIPMENT

 3. The citation of authority for part

183 continues to read as follows:

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

 4. Amend § 183.5 (b) by adding in

alphabetical order the following

standard:

§ 183.5 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc.,

3069 Solomons Island Road,

Edgewater, Maryland 21037–1416

ABYC A–16 Electric Navigation Lights1997 § 183.810

* * * * *

 5. Add subpart M to part 183 to read

as follows:

Subpart M—Navigation Lights

Sec.

183.801 Applicability.

183.803 Definitions.

183.810 Navigation light certification

requirements.

§ 183.801 Applicability.

 This subpart applies to recreational

vessel manufacturers, distributors, and

dealers installing such equipment in

new recreational vessels constructed

after November 1, 2002.

§ 183.803 Definitions.

 As used in this subpart:

 Dealer means any person who is

engaged in the sale and distribution of

recreational vessels to purchasers who

the seller in good faith believes to be

purchasing any such recreational vessel

for purposes other than resale.

 Distributor means any person engaged

in the sale and distribution of

recreational vessels for the purpose of

resale.

 Manufacturer means any person

engaged in:

 (1) The manufacture, construction, or

assembly of recreational vessels, or

 (2) The importation of recreational

vessels into the United States for

subsequent sale.

 Navigation lights are those lights

prescribed by the Navigation Rules

(Commandant Instruction 16672.2

series) to indicate a vessel’s presence,

type, operation, and relative heading.

§ 183.810 Navigation light certification

requirements.

 (a) Except as provided by paragraph

(b) of this section, each navigation light

must—

 (1) Meet the technical standards of the

applicable Navigation Rules;

 (2) Be certified by a laboratory listed

by the Coast Guard to the standards of

ABYC A–16 (incorporated by reference,

see § 183.5) or equivalent, although

portable battery-powered lights need

only meet the requirements of the

standard applicable to them; and

 (3) Bear a permanent and indelible

label that is visible without removing or

disassembling the light and that states

the following:

 (i) “USCG Approval 33 CFR 183.810.”

 (ii) “MEETS............ .” (Insert the

identification name or number of the

standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, to which the laboratory typetested.)

 (iii) “TESTED BY............ .” (Insert the

name or registered certification-mark of

the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard

that tested the fixture to the standard

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.)

 (iv) Name of manufacturer.

 (v) Number of model.

 (vi) Visibility of the light in nautical

miles.

 (vii) Date on which the light was typetested.

 (viii) Identification and specifications

of the bulb used in the compliance test.

 (b) If a light is too small to attach the

required label—

 (1) Place the information from the

label in or on the package that contains

the light; and

 (2) Mark each light “USCG” followed

by the certified range of visibility in

nautical miles (nm), for example,

“USCG 2nm’’. Once installed, this mark

must be visible without removing the

light.

46 CFR PART 25—REQUIREMENTS

 6. The citation of authority for part 25

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C.

3306, 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

 7. Amend § 25.01–3(b) by adding the

following standard in numerical order

to those listed under American Boat and

Yacht Council as follows:

§ 25.01–3 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

Standard A–16–97, Electric

 Navigation Lights, July 1997 § 25.10–3

* * * * *

 8. Add subpart 25.10 to part 25 to

read as follows:

 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations 55091
28 Boating Safety Circular

§ 25.10–1 Applicability.

This subpart applies to vessel

manufacturers, distributors, and dealers

installing navigation lights on all

uninspected commercial vessels, except

those completed before November 7,

2002.

§ 25.10–2 Definitions.

 As used in this subpart:

 Dealer means any person who is

engaged in the sale and distribution of

vessels to purchasers who the seller in

good faith believes to be purchasing

any such vessel for purposes other than

resale.

 Distributor means any person engaged

in the sale and distribution of vessels

for

the purpose of resale.

 Manufacturer means any person

engaged in:

 (1) The manufacture, construction, or

assembly of vessels, or

 (2) The importation of vessels into the

United States for subsequent sale.

 Navigation lights are those lights

prescribed by the Navigation Rules

(Commandant Instruction 16672.2

series) to indicate a vessel’s presence,

type, operation, and relative heading.

§ 25.10–3 Navigation light certification

requirements.

 (a) Except as provided by paragraph

(b) of this section, each navigation light

must—

 (1) Meet the technical standards of

the applicable Navigation Rules;

 (2) Be certified by a laboratory listed

by the Coast Guard to the standards of

ABYC A–16 (incorporated by reference,

see § 25.01–3), or equivalent, although

portable battery-powered lights need

only meet the requirements of the

standard applicable to them; and

 (3) Bear a permanent and indelible

label stating the following:

 (i) “USCG Approval 33 CFR 183.810”

 (ii) “MEETS _.” (Insert the

identification name or number of the

standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, to which the light was typetested.)

 (iii) “TESTED BY _.” (Insert the name

or registered certification-mark of the

laboratory listed by the Coast Guard

that

55092 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 212/Thursday, November 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations

tested the fixture to the standard under

paragraph (a)(2) of this section.)

 (iv) Name of Manufacturer.

 (v) Number of Model.

 (vi) Visibility of the light in nautical

miles (nm).

 (vii) Date on which the light was typetested.

 (viii) Identification of bulb used in the

compliance test.

 (b) If a light is too small to attach the

required label—

 (1) Place the information from the

label in or on the package that contains

the light; and

 (2) Mark each light “USCG” followed

by the certified range of visibility in

nautical miles, for example, “USCG

2nm.” Once installed, this mark must be

visible without removing the light.

 Dated: October 4, 2001.

Kenneth T. Venuto,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Assistant Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–27385 Filed 10–31–01; 8:45

am]

 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 12/Thursday, January 17, 2002/Rules and Regulations 2329

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 84 and 183

46 CFR Part 25

[USCG–1999–6580]

RIN 2115–AF70

Certification of Navigation Lights for

Uninspected Commercial Vessels and

Recreational Vessels

AGENCY:Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is delaying

the effective date of the final rule on

Certification of Navigation Lights for

Uninspected Commercial Vessels and

Recreational Vessels published in the

Federal Register on November 1, 2001.

The final rule requires domestic

manufacturers of vessels to install only

certified navigation lights on all newly

manufactured uninspected commercial

vessels and recreational vessels. This

rule aligns the requirements for these

lights with those for inspected

commercial vessels and with

requirements for all other mandatory

safety equipment carried on board all

vessels. The Coast Guard expects the

resulting reduction in the use of

noncompliant lights to improve safety

on the water.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is

effective on November 1, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–6580 and are

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

5p.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 rule, contact

Richard Blackman, Project Manager,

Office of Boating Safety, Coast Guard,

by telephone at 202–267–6810 or by email at rblackman@comdt.uscg.mil. If

you have questions on viewing the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets,Department of Transportation,

bytelephone at 202–366–5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 1, 2001, the Coast Guard

published a final rule entitled

“Certification of Navigation Lights for

Uninspected Commercial Vessels and

Recreational Vessels” in the Federal

Register (66 FR 55086). The final rule,

which was to become effective on

November 1, 2002, directs manufacturers

of uninspected commercial vessels and

recreational vessels to install only

navigation lights certified and labeled

by a laboratory listed by the Coast

Guard as meeting the technical

requirements of the Navigation Rules.

 Upon publication of the final rule, the

Coast Guard noted that the

implementation date may not provide

enough time to complete the testing of

navigation lights by laboratories listed

by the Coast Guard to allow the

recreational boat manufacturers to

comply with the regulation. July 2002 is

the date most of next year boat models

will appear on show room floors. Photo

boats for sales brochures will be built in

March and April 2002 so that these

brochures can be printed in time for the

introductions. Actual new model year

production will start in April and May

2002. Thus, boat builders must make

their navigation light selections for the

upcoming model year as early as

February 2002. Each navigation light

manufacturer will have to make tooling

changes to meet the new marking

requirements, and many will have to

retest their applicable product line.
Boating Safety Circular 29

Sufficient time is not available to do this

by February 2002. The alternative

would be to pull all unsold boats off the

market on November 1, 2002, replacing

them either with new boat models

equipped with compliant navigation

lights or modifying their navigation

lights to meet the new marking and

certification requirements. Most, if not

all, agree that this latter alternative is

not a reasonable course to take.

 Based upon this concern, the Coast

Guard is delaying the effective date of

the final rule to November 1, 2003.

 Accordingly, in FR Doc. 01–27320

published in the Federal Register on

November 1, 2001, at 66 FR 55086, the

effective date for the referenced final

rule is changed from November 1, 2002,

to November 1, 2003.

Dated: January 9, 2002.

Terry M. Cross,

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard,

Assistant Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 02–1252 Filed 1–16–02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

2330 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 12/Thursday, January 17, 2002/Rules and Regulations

NON-STANDARD DISTRIBUTION: B:c First District (125) only; Fifth District (250) only

 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

DISTRIBUTION -SDL No. 139

The Boating Safety Circular is in the public domain. It may be reproduced in whole or in part by an organization or individual without

permission. If it is reproduced, however, the Coast Guard would appreciate knowing how it is used. Write the Commandant (G-OPB), U.S.

Coast Guard, Washington, DC 20593-0001, or call: 1-800-368-5647.
30 Boating Safety Circular
Boating Safety Circular 31