[Federal Register: June 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 42488-42493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn02-9]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 175

[USCG-2000-8589]
RIN 2115-AG04

 
Wearing of Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs) by Certain Children 
Aboard Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requiring that most children under age 13 
aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs), or 
lifejackets. During 1995-1998, 105 children under 13 died in the water, 
66 of them by drowning. This Rule should reduce the number of children 
who drown because they are not wearing lifejackets.

DATES: This Interim Rule is effective December 23, 2002. Comments and 
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before 
August 23, 2002.

ADDRESSES: To make sure they do not enter the docket [USCG-2000-8589] 
more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001.
    (2) By hand-delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Internet Site for the Docket 
Management System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble

[[Page 42489]]

as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and 
be available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Interim 
Rule, call Carl Perry, Coast Guard, telephone: 202-267-0979. If you 
have questions on viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, 
Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On May 1, 2001, we published in the Federal Register [66 FR 21717] 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Wearing of Personal 
Flotation Devices (PFDs) by Certain Children Aboard Recreational 
Vessels''. We received 46 letters commenting on the proposed rule. No 
public hearing was requested and none was held.
    The NPRM followed two published notices of request for comments, 
both titled ``Recreational Boating Safety-Federal Requirements for 
Wearing Personal Flotation Devices,'' under the docket number CGD 97-
059. The first appeared in the Federal Register on September 25, 1997 
[62 FR 50280]; the second, which extended the comment period, on March 
20, 1998 [63 FR 13586]. The comments received in response to these 
notices we discussed in the NPRM.
    After summarizing the comments received in response to the NPRM, we 
consulted the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) at its 
meeting in October 2001 regarding the results. NBSAC recommended that 
we proceed to publish a Final Rule, as proposed in the NPRM.
    We published a Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 27, 
2002 [67 FR 8881], addressing requirements for children under age 13 to 
wear PFDs while the children are on deck and their vessels are under 
way. First, for States without their own statutes or rules on age, we 
established a Federal requirement complete in itself. Second, for 
States with unqualified statutes or rules on age (for most States with 
laws on age), we adopted those statutes or rules whole. Third, however, 
for States with their own statutes or rules on age qualified by, say, 
lengths of vessels, we purported to adopt those statutes or rules 
though not so qualified. Even this could have worked except for one 
problem: Our boarding-officers and those States' boarding-officers 
would have been enforcing different laws on the same waters.
    A State Boating Law Administrator alerted us to this potential 
misfit between our own rule and States' qualified statutes or rules. At 
the same time, as we prepared guidance for our own boarding officers on 
the fine points of enforcement, we observed the same misfit. We decided 
that we needed to withdraw the Final Rule as it stood and rectify it. 
We have already published a Notice of Withdrawal [67 FR 14645 (March 
27, 2002)]. By this Interim Rule we rectify the Rule as it stood.

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [USCG-2000-
8589], indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, by hand-delivery, by fax, or 
electronically to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them 
by mail or hand-delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger 
than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. 
If you submit them by mail and want to know they reached the Facility, 
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will 
consider all comments and material received during the comment period. 
We may change this Interim Rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

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

Background and Purpose

    The number of deaths by drowning of children under 13 has decreased 
from 26 in 1995 to 11 in 1998. This trend is favorable on its face, and 
suggests the possibility that the appropriate Federal policy may be one 
of watchful waiting. Yet a review of statistics on recreational-boating 
accidents during 1998 showed that the rate of children drowning in 
States that require children to wear lifejackets (1.22 such drownings 
for every 1000 accidents) is lower than that of States that do not 
(1.31 such drownings for every 1000 accidents).
    By late 1995, 26 States had enacted statutes or instated rules 
requiring children to wear lifejackets while aboard recreational 
vessels. The requirements, however, were not consistent nationwide, 
affecting children of different ages, while aboard vessels of different 
sizes, and engaged in different activities. By late 1999, 36 States had 
enacted statutes or instated rules requiring children to wear 
lifejackets while aboard recreational vessels. The requirements, 
however, still were not consistent nationwide. They varied by the age 
for wearing: from under age 18, when the vessel operator is under 18, 
to under age 6. They varied in other particulars, too: on the sizes of 
vessels (more than 26 feet in length; or less than 65 feet, 26 feet, 19 
feet, 18 feet, or 16 feet in length); whether the vessels were under 
way, in motion, or not specified; and whether the children were on open 
decks, below decks, or in enclosed cabins.
    In support of ongoing State efforts to improve boating safety, we 
are instating a requirement that children under 13 wear lifejackets 
approved by the Coast Guard while aboard recreational vessels under 
way, except when the children are below decks or in enclosed cabins. We 
are nevertheless adopting any State's statute or rule requiring 
children aboard recreational vessels to wear lifejackets within those 
States to avoid differences in enforcement between State and Federal 
boarding-officers. We encourage States to establish their own 
requirements for children and also encourage greater uniformity of 
State statutes and rules nationwide.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    By the close of the comment period on August 30, 2001, we had 
received 46 comments, from--
11 recreational boaters;
7 governmental agencies;
3 representatives of the boating industry;
1 general business;
1 boating organization;
20 general boating interests;
2 safety organizations; and
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Twenty-two comments supported the Rule as proposed in the NPRM, eight 
supported it with changes, and sixteen opposed it.

[[Page 42490]]

    Most of the comments that supported the Rule, as proposed in the 
NPRM, stated that it would be a positive step toward reducing drownings 
and toward a uniform requirement across the States. Two comments 
indicated that requiring children to wear PFDs would make boating safer 
and more pleasant for parents because parents themselves often wear 
PFDs, again to influence children. Parents also know that mishaps 
happen quickly and that they cannot always watch children on a boat so 
use of PFDs increases their sense of safety. In separate comments, two 
agencies in North Carolina stated that that State's data on drownings 
indicate that most children who drowned there were not wearing PFDs at 
the time of the incidents.
    Eight comments either suggested helpful changes or stated that they 
could support the Rule, or at least not object to it if certain changes 
were made.
    Two comments requested that the Rule allow the use of automatic, 
inflatable PFDs or safety harnesses on all vessels or at least on every 
vessel more than 21 feet in length.
    But the proposed rule never contemplated prohibiting, and this 
Interim Rule does not prohibit, the use of inflatable PFDs for 
children. The Coast Guard has already approved automatic, hybrid, 
inflatable PFDs for children, which means these PFDs meet the 
requirements of this Rule. Once the Coast Guard has approved automatic, 
fully inflatable PFDs for children to wear, such devices will also meet 
these requirements. Nor does this Rule prohibit the use of safety 
harnesses; it just does not allow their use instead of wearing PFDs. 
The Coast Guard has decided not to revise this Rule to take account of 
these two comments, because the Rule anticipates them.
    One comment suggested limiting the Rule to children on boats less 
than 18 feet that are under way or making way, while another suggested 
limiting it to children on the decks of vessels more than 65 feet.
    The Coast Guard has no data indicating any specific length above 
which children become safe even without wearing lifejackets. Even so, 
we want to avoid disparate applicability of Federal and State 
requirements for wearing PFDs within any specific State. Therefore, 
this rule adds a new Sec. 175.25 to adopt any State statute or rule 
requiring certain children to wear lifejackets, including such limits 
on applicability as the lengths of vessels; whether the vessels are 
under way, in motion, or not specified; and whether the children are on 
open decks, below decks, or in enclosed cabins.
    Several comments asked the Coast Guard to lower the age limit 
because many 12-year-olds are better swimmers than many adults. One 
comment suggested lowering it to 6 years old when a vessel is not under 
way. Another comment recommended exempting those children who have 
passed a swimming course or a swimming-proficiency test.
    In a study of Recreational Boating Safety from 1993, NTSB 
recommended that the Coast Guard work with the National Association of 
State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and the American Academy of 
Pediatrics to develop ``a uniform component of standards that 
establishes an age at or below which all children should be required by 
all States to wear personal flotation devices while in recreational 
boats.'' NTSB proposed this strategy instead of one that would set 
specific Federal age-based requirements for wearing PFDs. The Coast 
Guard, these two organizations, and others endorsed mandatory use of 
lifejackets for children 12 and under. The other organizations were the 
National Safety Council, NBSAC, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, the 
National Water Safety Congress, the National Recreational Boating 
Safety Coalition, the National Safe Boating Council, the National 
Marine Manufacturers Association, the PFD Manufacturers Association, 
the American Medical Association, the American Camping Association, and 
the National Safe Kids Campaign. At least 14 States selected the same 
age-based requirements for children to wear lifejackets, either under 
13 years or 12 years and under, which squares with the recent 
recommendations of NBSAC and NTSB.
    Therefore, we have retained in this Interim Rule the Federal age-
based requirement of under 13, as proposed in the NPRM. (Under 33 CFR 
175.5, the States may set their own wearing requirements different from 
the Federal ones. Still, under it, the Coast Guard need not defer to 
States that have set no such requirements by statute or rule; and it 
does not so defer here.)
    Another comment suggested that the current wording of ``appropriate 
PFDs'' is too vague and requested that the ``appropriate'' be replaced 
with ``a Type I, II, III, or V PFD.''
    In the preamble to the NPRM [66 FR 21717], under paragraph 2 of the 
discussion of section 175.15 of the proposed rule, we stated that the 
proposed requirement would be to wear lifejackets approved by the Coast 
Guard. We agree with the comment and have revised this section to read 
``* * * appropriate PFDs approved by the Coast Guard.''
    In its comment, the NTSB requested that the Coast Guard reconsider 
allowing States to set their own age-based requirements, even if lower 
than 12 years old. The NTSB urged the Coast Guard to establish a 
uniform standard for the mandatory use of PFDs for all children under 
age 13. According to NTSB, a national standard would help parents and 
law-enforcement agencies by minimizing confusion about which children 
must wear PFDs in which States. Another comment also asked that the 
Rule preempt the different age-based requirements from State to State.
    Again, the Coast Guard has decided not to amend 33 CFR 175.5 so as 
to preempt the States from setting their own wearing requirements 
different from the Federal ones and, in fact, is adopting them where 
they exist. States' requirements, even where they vary, represent a 
real improvement.
    Seven of the sixteen opposing comments stated that mandatory use of 
lifejackets is a State issue.
    One comment expressed concern that Federal action would interfere 
with individual State efforts to mandate use of PFDs. It and another 
suggested that each State be allowed to continue drafting laws tailored 
to its own distinct waters and boating community. Another comment 
stated that the low number of children's drownings that appear in 
national statistics indicate that States are handling the issue 
properly. Two others disapproved of a Federal requirement because it 
would create confusion at a time when most States already require that 
children wear lifejackets. One of those, from the Virginia Department 
of Game and Inland Fisheries, stated that, because under the proposed 
rule States would continue to enforce existing age limits, it is 
``unclear how [that rule] would encourage greater uniformity of boating 
laws.'' It added that Virginia's own data on boating accidents did not 
support imposing the requirement on ``potentially hundreds of thousands 
of `recreational vessel users'.''
    This Interim Rule acknowledges the law-enforcement efforts of the 
many States that already require children under specific ages to wear 
lifejackets while on board recreational vessels and, by adopting any 
statutes or rules requiring children to wear lifejackets, including any 
limits on applicability, within those States, does not interfere with 
those efforts. It adds authority for boarding officers of the Coast 
Guard, enforcing Federal law (or State law assimilated to it), to 
support those

[[Page 42491]]

efforts. Further, we encourage other States to undertake their own such 
efforts, without imposing a Federal mandate in this Interim Rule.
    Other opposing comments stated that national statistics do not 
warrant a Federal rule, and one suggested that the Coast Guard focus on 
education rather than regulation. Another questioned whether the Coast 
Guard's own statistics supported the Rule. It stated that some entries 
in the Boating Accident Reporting Database (BARD) first report deaths 
as due to drownings, which coroners later conclude were actually due to 
carbon-monoxide poison. Another responded that the data indicate that 
the Rule would not have saved most children who drowned; and it 
concluded that age 12 ``is certainly too old.''
    The Coast Guard has fostered and will continue to foster safety in 
recreational boating through education and public awareness. However, 
we disagree with the comments implying that our boarding officers 
should not be authorized to support States' law-enforcement officers by 
enforcing requirements for children to wear lifejackets within the 
States with such requirements. Our applying ``under 13'' agrees with 
recommendations from NBSAC and the NTSB. Whether or not our statistics 
compel Federal measures, they do, as we observe, support them. 
Therefore, we have retained the age-based requirement as proposed.
    Other comments objecting to the Rule noted the Coast Guard's 
limited funds for enforcement. One stated that because most States 
already have a mandated age limit, generally 12, the Coast Guard would 
be wasting valuable man-hours handing out citations like parking 
tickets. It also voiced concern that the citations could lead to higher 
insurance costs for individual boaters. Another stated that a Federal 
rule would be ineffective because there would be no added funding for 
enforcement.
    In the preamble to the NPRM, under paragraph 1 of the Regulatory 
Evaluation discussing the costs of the proposed rule, we stated that 
``* * * the Coast Guard already trains its boarding officers to check 
safety equipment.'' Enforcement of the Rule will entail few if any 
stops that these officers would not have been making anyway during 
enforcement of, say, rules on carriage of that equipment. The Coast 
Guard has decided that the Rule, as proposed in the NPRM, anticipates 
these comments and it adopts that Rule, unchanged in these respects, as 
this Interim Rule.
    Three comments voiced concern that the proposed rule did not 
consider how uncomfortable lifejackets can be for children, especially 
those boating in hot, humid climates. One of the three stated that 
children wearing lifejackets in those climates could suffer heat stroke 
and argued that the Rule would discriminate against children who are 
under 13 but who are good, even excellent, swimmers. Another added that 
the Coast Guard could reduce the number of drownings more effectively 
if it focused educational campaigns on adults who use canoes and 
johnboats to go fishing or bird-watching. These people view boating 
only as a means to doing the primary activity, so they may not be as 
aware of boating safety as boaters with children on board.
    Some models and types of lifejackets are more comfortable than 
others, designs are ever-evolving, and there are already some designs 
available in the marketplace that reduce the threat of injury by heat 
stroke. Voluntary swimming is not the same as involuntary swimming 
after falling overboard or after a collision. Again, the Coast Guard 
has fostered and will continue to foster recreational boating safety 
through education and public awareness, even where boating is involved 
but where it is not the primary activity. The Coast Guard adopts the 
proposed rule, unchanged in these respects, as this Interim Rule.
    Other comments stated that the decision whether to place a child in 
a lifejacket should belong to the parents or guardians and that the 
government cannot protect people from their own poor judgment.
    This Interim Rule does not preclude parents and guardians from the 
exercise of good judgment, but it does prohibit the operator of the 
boat from getting under way until each child on board and on deck is 
wearing a lifejacket. It is likely to have the same effect on the 
judgment of parents and guardians as laws that require the use of 
seatbelts and special seats for children in cars. Even if ``government 
cannot protect people from their own poor judgment,'' it can protect 
some people from some others' poor judgment. The Coast Guard adopts the 
proposed rule, unchanged in these respects, as this Interim Rule.

Discussion of Interim Rule

    1. Section 175.3 adds a definition of the term ``State'' to clarify 
the applicability of non-Federal requirements and the Federal adoption 
of those requirements.
    2. Section 175.15 accomplishes a minor editorial change and adds a 
new paragraph establishing a requirement for children under 13 to wear 
lifejackets approved by the Coast Guard while aboard recreational 
vessels.
    3. Subpart B adds a new section 175.25 adopting States' statutes or 
rules requiring children to wear lifejackets while aboard recreational 
vessels within those States.
    This Interim Rule (once effective) applies the Federal standard in 
full only where a State has not enacted or instated such a requirement. 
It would apply in full now, therefore, only in American Samoa, 
Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, the Northern 
Mariana Islands, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, the Virgin Islands, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming [see 
the 1999 edition of the National Association of State Boating Law 
Administrators, Reference Guide to State Boating Laws]; and, for 
recreational vessels owned in the United States, it applies (once 
effective) on the high seas.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This Interim Rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not 
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (DOT)[44 FR 11040 (February 26, l979)].
    An interim Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT follows:

1. Cost of Rule

    This Interim Rule imposes no costs on the boating public. Existing 
rules require the carriage of an appropriate lifejacket for each 
passenger. Costs to the Government are non-existent as well because the 
Coast Guard already directs its boarding officers to board recreational 
vessels and already trains them to check safety equipment, once there.

2. Benefit of Rule

    This Interim Rule is appropriate because, even though statistics on 
boating accidents show that the actual numbers of children under 13 
that drowned in recent years were relatively small (14 in 1998, 14 in 
1999, and 7 in 2000), these few drownings were avoidable. It should 
reduce the number of children under 13 that drown every year because 
they are not wearing lifejackets.
    This Rule affects only those States that have not established 
requirements, by statute or rule, for children to wear lifejackets. In 
those States, there were 7

[[Page 42492]]

drownings and 1 moderate injury and 3 critical injuries due to near-
drownings of children under 13 from 1996 through 2000. These drownings 
and near-drownings might have been prevented if the children had worn 
lifejackets. (These numbers may overstate the number of lives that 
could have been saved if the children had worn lifejackets: Narratives 
in accident reports may fail to disclose circumstances in which the 
victims were pinned, for example, and would have drowned anyway. 
Equally, though, they may understate the number of lives that could 
have been saved: Many accidents go unreported entirely.)
    A memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 
dated January 29, 2002, sets the benefit of averting an accidental 
fatality in regulatory analyses at $3.0 million. Another memorandum 
from that Office, dated January 8, 1993, yet never superseded, advises 
agencies within the Department to classify injuries as minor, moderate, 
serious, severe, critical, or fatal. The latter memorandum also assigns 
to each degree of injury averted a certain percentage of the value of 
society's willingness to pay to avert a fatality. To calculate the 
value of society's willingness to pay to avert each degree of injury, 
we multiplied $3.0 million by the percentage assigned to each degree of 
injury averted.
    If we consider a 100% rate of compliance with a requirement for 
children to wear lifejackets, we can calculate the retrospective 
benefits of this Rule as below:

            Benefit of Averting Accidental Injuries and Fatalities for States Without Existing Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
   Severity category of injury        Benefit of averting an      injuries (1996- Benefit if accidental injuries
                                  accidental  injury or fatality       2000)        and  fatalities are averted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor...........................  ($3,000,000)(0.0020)= $6,000                 0  ($6,000)(0)= 0
Moderate........................  ($3,000,000)(0.0155)= $46,500                1  ($46,500)(1) = $46,500
Serious.........................  ($3,000,000)(0.0575)= $172,500               0  ($172,500)(0) = 0
Severe..........................  ($3,000,000)(0.1875)= $562,500               0  ($562,500)(0) = 0
Critical........................  ($3,000,000)(0.7625)=                        3  ($2,287,500)(3) = $6,862,500
                                   $2,287,500
Fatal...........................  ($3,000,000)(1.000)=                         7  ($3,000,000)(7) = $21,000,000
                                   $3,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............................              11  $27,909,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total value of injuries and fatalities averted for 1996-2000 
would have been $27,909,000. Therefore, the average annual value of 
injuries and fatalities averted would have been $5,581,800, calculated 
as ($27,909,000)/(5 years).

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601-612], we have 
considered whether this Interim Rule has a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    This Federal requirement for children under 13 to wear lifejackets 
applies (once effective) to operators of recreational vessels on waters 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in 33 CFR 
2.05-30). Further, it applies likewise to operators of recreational 
vessels owned in the United States, while operating on the high seas 
(as defined in 33 CFR 2.05-1). Last, since this Rule adopts any State 
statute or rule requiring certain children to wear lifejackets, 
including any limits on applicability, within those States, this 
requirement applies likewise to operators of recreational vessels 
either in States with such requirements or on navigable waters of the 
United States outside States altogether.
    Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to 
individuals, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
Rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If you think that this Rule affects small 
entities, that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity, and that this Rule will have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the 
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your 
comment, explain why you think this Rule affects small entities, how 
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies, 
and how and to what degree this Rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

    This Interim Rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520].

Federalism

    We have analyzed this Interim Rule under Executive Order 13132 and 
have determined that, because the Federal requirement for children 
under 13 to wear lifejackets will not supersede or preempt any State's 
comparable requirement, this Rule does not have implications for 
federalism under that Order. The Federal requirements apply in full 
only where there are no State requirements; where there are State 
requirements, the Federal requirements apply only so as to assimilate 
the State requirements.

[[Page 42493]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1531-1538] 
governs the issuance of Federal rules that impose unfunded mandates. An 
unfunded mandate is a requirement that a State, local, or tribal 
government, or the private sector, incur direct costs without the 
Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those 
costs. This Interim Rule does not impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

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

Reform of Civil Justice

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this Interim Rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This Rule is not an economically significant rule. Nor does it 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children; on the contrary, it advances the 
welfare of children even though it defers to States' limits on 
applicability of their requirements for children to wear lifejackets.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This Interim Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive 
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this Interim Rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this Rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. The Rule requires that certain children 
aboard recreational vessels wear lifejackets. A Determination of 
Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 175

    Marine Safety.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 175 as follows:
    1. The citation of authority for part 175 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Amend Sec. 175.3 by adding the following definition in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 175.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    State means a State or Territory of the United States of America, 
whether a State of the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Marianas Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 175.15 by removing from the introductory text the 
cite ``Sec. 175.17'' and adding in its place the cite Secs. 175.17 and 
175.25''; by removing from paragraph (b) the term ``PFD's'' and adding 
in its place the term ``PFDs''; and by adding a new paragraph (c), to 
read as follows:


Sec. 175.15  Personal flotation devices required.

* * * * *
    (c) No person may operate a recreational vessel under way with any 
child under 13 years old aboard unless each such child is either--
    (1) Wearing an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard; or
    (2) Below decks or in an enclosed cabin.
    4. Add a new Sec. 175.25 to subpart B, to read as follows:


Sec. 175.25  Adoption of States' requirements for children to wear 
personal flotation devices.

    On waters within the geographical boundaries of any State that has 
established by statute or rule a requirement under which each child 
must wear an appropriate PFD approved by the Coast Guard while aboard a 
recreational vessel, no person may use such a vessel in violation of 
that statute or rule.

    Dated: June 3, 2002.
Kenneth T. Venuto,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 02-15793 Filed 6-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P