Maxum Product Recall, and Safety Modifications

Updated:8/26/11 Printer Version

If your checking your Maxum boat for recalls you can start here.

You will find the US Coast Guard recall database on the internet at.
http://www.uscgboating.org/recalls/recalls_database.htm

But you won't find all of the Maxum Marine recalls easily. And you won't find them all by putting in your (MIC) such as BVK, or MXY. In some cases, such as the first recall listed, you need to put in BLB, (US Marine's Bayliner MIC) the case number is 020111S, but even so this is all you will see.

Manufacturer Identification Code BLB
Details for Recall Number 020111S

Number: 020111S
MIC: BLB
Company: BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION
Company Official: U. S. MARINE
Model Name: VARIOUS
Model Year: 1998-01
Problem 1: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Problem 2:
HIN: BLB
Case Open Date: 06/17/2002
Disposition: OPEN
Case Close Date:
Units: 0
Campaign Open Date: 07/31/2002
Boat Type: 12
Campaign Close Date:
Severity: H
Comments: FUSES THAT ARE NO IGNITON PROTECTED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. BATTERY CHARGER TERMINALS AND STUDS NOT PROTECTED BY BOOTS CAPSS OR NIPPLES. CONDUCTOR FROM WINDLASS TO BATTERY NOT SHEATHED WITH OVERCURRENT PROTECTION WITHIN 40 INCHES OF SOURCE OF POWER. CONDUCTOR FROM BATTERY TO CIRCUIT BREAKER PANEL OVER SEVEN INCHES BUT NOT SHEATHED. CONDUCTOR FROM BATTERY CHARGER TO BATTERY HAS OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FARTHER THAN SEVEN BUT LESS THAN 40 INCHES BUT NOT SHEATHED. CONDUCTOR FROM ALTERNATOR CHARGE OUTPUT TO DC POSITIVE SYSTEM LONGER THAN 72 INCHES. NO SHEATHING OR OVER CURRENT PROTECTION.


This does not tell you much, so here's US Marines letter to the Coast Guard that was obtained from the Coast Guard.

The material below was scanned from original copies,
run through a text converter and is believed correct.

United States Coast Guard
Operations Policy Directorate
Office of Boating Safety


RECREATIONAL BOATING
PRODUCT ASSURANCE DIVISION

COMMANDANT (G-OPB-3)
2100 SECOND STREET, S.W. ROOM 3104
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-6001

TEL: (202) 267-0984
FAX: (202) 267-4285

TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 7

DATE: Tuesday, October 01, 2002
FROM: PETER D. EIKENBERRY

TO: MR. James

SUBJECT: Defect Notification Campaign 020111S

COMMENTS: SEE ATTACHED

The attached documents list the models that US Marine is recalling for various violations of the electrical system regulations. The first page is a list of all the models involved. The additional pages list the problems and the models that have that problem.

If you have any questions concerning this or any other boating safety subject,
please contact me at (202) 267-6894.
My E-mail address is: peikenberry@comdt.uscg.mil.
visit our web site at http://www.uscgboating.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02 TUE 13:55 FAX 202-267-4285 JUL-31-2002 15:59 U S MARINE

OFC BOATING SAFETY G-OPB
USCG Recall Campaign 020111 S 30 July 2002
Possible instances being investigated
Note: Brand and MIC were added by us, and are were not part of the original data, US Marine was asked to verify this but we have received no response back from them.

List of effected models	1	2	3	Manufacturer
2452CD	0	933	0
5788EA	0	0	0
2858EC	0	460	347
3788ED	8	8	8
5288EF	0	0	0
3988EH	2	0	2
3585EJ	14	0	21	Maxum
3055EL	0	0	694
3587EN	3	0	6
3255EP	0	85	0
4087ET	5	0	5
4085EU	0	23	4
4788EV	0	0	0
3788HD	0	0	5
3488HS	0	0	0
3055MK	0	358	168	Maxum 3000 SCR
4185ML	0	20	5	Maxum 4100 SCR
2855MM	0	0	52
2750MP	0	10	0
2455MS	0	118	1014	Maxum 2400 SCR
2855MU	0	0	126	Maxum 2900 SCR
2655SB	0	913	553
2859SC	0	334	243
2355SJ	0	758	371
2855ST	0	0	528
4188YB	0	2	0	Maxum 4100 SCB
3585YC	171	66	0	Maxum 3700 SCR
3585YS	0	24	0	Maxum 3500 SCR
Totals	203	4112	4152

Note: Many products may contain more than one possible non-compliance
JUN-17-2002 08:07 US MARINE ENGINEERING 360-403-2984 P.02/05

Commandant United States Coast Guard
Recreational Boating Division
2100 2nd Street S.W.
Washington, D.C 20593-0001


To the Honorable Commandant of the United States Coast Guard.

It has come to our attention that certain gasoline-powered boats, which we manufacture, are not in compliance with the, Code of Federal Regulations sections 183.455-b, 183A10-9, and 183,445-b. With speed and diligence, US Marine has meticulously analyzed all boats manufactured for the last five years with regard to the Code of Federal Regulations and would like to propose a timely solution to bring these boats into compliance. The following text defines each of the non-compliance issues and our proposed action:

Issue I-

183-410-a "Each electrical component must not ignite a propane gas and air mixture that is 4.25 to 5.25 percent propane gas by volume surrounding the electrical component when it is operated at each of it's manufacturer rated voltages and current loadings, unless it is isolated from gasoline fuel sources, such as engines, valves, connections, or other fittings in vent lines, fill lines, distribution lines, or on fuel tanks, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section."

US Marine has installed over-current fuses in the engine room that do not comply with this Regulation. It is US Marine's intention, on existing products, to replace these non-compliant fuses with Ignition protected fuses. US Marine will also ensure that all new products will be manufactured in compliance with this regulation.

List of effected models:

Model	Model Year	Manufacturer
3686YO	1999-2001
3587EN	1998
4087ET	1998-1999
378SED	1998-1999
3988EH	1999-2000
358SEJ	1999

Issues 2-

183-445-b "Each ungrounded terminal or stud that is continuously energized must meet section 183.455 or must have a boot, nipple, cap, cover or shield that prevents accidental short-circuiting at the terminals or stud"

US Marine has identified conductors from the battery to the battery charger that do not meet the above regulation. The battery chargers terminals or studs are exposed and it is US Marine's intention, on existing products, to provide an insulating boot to bring this conductor into
Compliance with 183.455-b. US Marine will also ensure that all new products will be manufactured in compliance with this regulation.

List of effected models	Model Year	Manufacturer
2858EC	1998-2002
2859SC	1998-2002
2452CD	1998-2000
2655SB	1998-2000
2355SJ	1998-1999
3255EP	1998-1999
4085EU	1998-1999
3055MK	1998-1999	Maxum 3000 SCR
4185ML	1998-1999	Maxum 4100 SCR
275OMP	1998
2455MS	1999	Maxum 2400 SCR
3586YC	2000-2001	Maxum 3700 SCR
4188YB	2000	Maxum 4100 SCB
3585YS	2001	Maxum 3500 SCR

Issue 3.

183-455-b "A manually reset, trip free circuit breaker or fuse must be placed at the source of power for each circuit or conductor except:

I. If it is physically impractical to place the circuit breaker or fuse at the source of power, it may be placed with 7 inches of the source of power for each circuit or conductor, measured along the conductor.
If it is physically impractical to place the circuit breaker or fuse at or within 7 inches of the source of power, it may be placed within 40 inches of the source of power for each circuit or conductor, measured along the conductor, if the conductor is contained throughout its entire distance between the source of power and the required circuit breaker or fuse in a sheath or enclosure such as a junction box, control box, or enclosed panel."

This regulation requires sheathing to cover the conductor if it extends past 7 inches, but less than 40 inches from the point of connection to the DC positive system. US Marine has identified certain conductors that not meet this regulation:

1. Conductor I connects the "windlass" breaker to the load side of the battery switch. This conductor is routed along the bulkhead and connects to a circuit breaker mounted on a metal panel. The conductors are within the 40-inch requirement but the conductors are not sheathed.

2. Conductor 2 connects the following list of circuit protection devices, mounted on the battery switch panel, to the load side of the battery switch. These conductors are routed behind a metal panel and the length of the conductors is less than 20 inches and greater than 7 inches.
These conductors are not sheathed.
&Mac183; "battery charger" circuit breaker or fuse
&Mac183; "DC Main" circuit breaker or fuse
&Mac183; "Davit circuit breaker or fuse
&Mac183; "Battery monitor circuit breaker or fuse

3. Conductor 3 connects the battery charger to the battery switch. The length of this conductor is less than 40 inches and greater than 7 inches. This conductor does not have sheathing or over-current protection.

4. Conductor 4 connects the alternator charge output to the DC positive system via the starter post. The length of this conductor is greater than 72 inches. This conductor does not have sheathing or over-current protection.

In regards to Conductor 4, it is US Marine's intention, on existing products to supply an "inline fuse kit" for all boats identified as non-complaint. The inline fuse kit will provide over-current protection within 7 inches of the DC positive source; -US Marine will ensure that all new production will be manufactured in compliance with this regulation.

List of effected Models	Model Years	Manufacturer
3585EJ	1998
2858EC	1999-2002
2559SC	1999-2000
2655SB	1999-2000
2355SJ	1999
2555ST	1999-2000
3055EL	1999-2002
2455MS	1999-2002	Maxum 2400 SCR
2855MU	1999	Maxum 2900 SCR
2555MM	1999
4185ML	1999	Maxum 4100 SCR
3055MK	1999	Maxum 3000 SCR
3587EN	1999
3788HD	2000-2002
4087ET	1999-2002
4085EU	1999
3788ED	1999-2002
3988EH	1999-2002
3488HS	1999-2002
5788EA	1999-2002
5288EF	1999-2002
4788EV	1999

For boats already manufactured we would like to respectfully request an exemption to 183.455-b for Conductor 1, 2 and 3. Our analysis of the failure modes for the source to load circuits that include Conductors 1. 2, and 3 indicates that the requested exemption will not result in any significant reduction in product safety. The following information summarizes the results of our analysis and our rationale for requesting this exemption:
These conductors are not exposed to possible physical damage. They are either concealed behind a panel or routed behind a bulkhead. Since an over current protection device protects conductors I & 2 the only possible cause of fire would be the potential "short circuiting" of these conductors. Since they are protected from physical damage this possibility is extremely remote. US Marine has never received a report of this type of failure.
CFR 183.460-a allows 72 inches, unsheathed, from the main DC positive source to a load. Since Conductors 1,2 and 3 connect a load to the battery switch, not the main DC positive source, an analysis of the entire circuit from the main DC positive source to the load was performed. Conductors 1.2 and 3 are considerably smaller in diameter than the cranking conductors. All of US Marines' exempt cranking conductors can reliably handle the ampacity in a possible "short circuit" situation on the load side of the battery switch, before failure of Conductors 1,2 and 3. Since this is the case, connection of Conductors 1,2 and 3 to the battery switch should be considered equivalent to connecting these conductors to the main DC source, the battery. This would then allow 72 inches, unsheathed to route our conductors to their appropriate loads.

This defines each of the non-compliant issues, the analysis of the boats effected and our proposed action to bring theme boom into compliance.

Respectfully,

Mark Paulhus
Director of Engineering
US Marine

This tells me yes, there is a problem.
And that it ran through much of the US Marine line.
But read this again closely, it only covers GASOLINE powered boats...
And it asserts the build code in the NMMA nameplate wasn't follower, this code comes from the ABYC. I verified with the ABYC that the electrical section of the ABYC code was the same as the NMMA published for the years in question. In the above reply, US Marine chose to ignore that and use they our judgement.

But there's more. Why aren't the DIESEL boats covered?

The following is my letter to the Coast Guard asking that they should, be and stating why.

To:
US Coast Guard Recreational Safety Commission
Office of Boating

Attn: Boating Safety
Mr. Peter Eikenberry 202-267-6894


From:
James Orlando, FL


Ref: Case #020142T and our previous letter of inquiry

Case #020142T involves electrical problems in numerous Maxum, Bayliner, US Marine models, built at different "MIC" plants, such as BVK, BL2, BLB, USD and MXY, powered by "Gasoline" engines. Please be aware that in these listed model numbers, there may be "Diesel" engine boats that US Marine feels are exempt from this case. In my most recent call to US Marine, US Marines position for this exclusion is; Title 33 US Code of Federal regulations, Subpart 1 - Electrical Systems General, 183.401 (a) which states "This subpart applies to all boats the have gasoline engine…"
Further it was stated that US Marine felt that this exempted any Diesel powerboats in that recall case.
A note is in order here involving the models identified by US Marine, it is my understanding that some Maxum/US Marine models 4188(YB) and 4688(YE) were also built with Gasoline engines and that the problems identified in this recall case #020142T may also apply to them, they are not listed. Maxum 3585(YJ) and 3585(YS) were built in more recent years are models I have no intimate knowledge of. I respectfully ask that this be reviewed.

It is my contention that US Marine is incorrect; and that Title 46, United States Code, Chapter 43 applies here for the Diesel powered boats manufactured by them. Please note that it was the United States Code, which originally created the Code of Federal Regulations and provides authority to you in this case. The electrical wiring problems are of such a nature to be in non-compliance with ABYC and NMMA code at the time of manufacture and contain defects which create a substantial risk to the boater and their guests.

Title 46 United States Code, Chapter 43

4307. Prohibited acts

(a) A person may not -


(1) manufacture, construct, assemble, sell or offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States, a recreational vessel, associated equipment, or component of the vessel or equipment unless -

(A)(i) it conforms with this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter; and

(ii) it does not contain a defect which has been identified, in communication to such person by the Secretary or the manufacturer of that vessel, equipment or component, as creating a substantial risk of personal injury to the public;


4310. Repair and replacement of defects

(b) If a recreational vessel or associated equipment has left the place of manufacture and the recreational vessel manufacturer discovers or acquires information that the manufacturer decides, in the
exercise of reasonable and prudent judgment, indicates that a recreational vessel or associated equipment subject to applicable regulation prescribed under section 4302 of this title either fails to comply with the regulation, or contains a defect that creates
a substantial risk of personal injury to the public, the manufacturer shall provide notification of the defect or failure of compliance as provided by subsections (c) and (d) of this section within a reasonable
time after the manufacturer has discovered the defect.



Peter, now a little history on this case, this electrical problem issue all started with this E-mail, by me, to Maxum/US Marine on 8/14/2001


Electrical Wiring and NMMA Nameplate Requirements: Sometimes things just don't sound right. That's what happened to me when looking at my electrical drawing for my 4600 SCB. I asked questions and got half answers. Well, I finally called the NMMA, those are the people who put the nameplate on your boats to certify it is built to their standards and they give Maxum the "Standard Basics" to which Maxum follows to build our boats. I've chased down a few questions, some answers I'm fully satisfied with, some answers I find "by the book incorrect" but safe, and one just bothered me to the point I called the NMMA and asked Thomas Marhevko what he thought of it.
Here's the problem. In 1998 the NMMA made changes in section E-9 of the Direct Current portion of the Standards Basis. Thomas says the NMMA gives a years grace to allow the manufactures to catch up. I feel my boat built in 1999 should have had this wiring installed, Thomas agrees. I have previously brought this up with Phil MacIntire the former Electrical Engineer at Maxum. I have never gotten an acceptable answer from him. He was the electrical engineer in this time frame and he is now gone from Maxum.
Here's the problem. The NMMA requires overcurrent protection to be installed between the battery and the DC panel. Typically a 300 amp inline fuse. It is my view that not having this overcurrent protection is a major safety issue. This has been brought up to Maxum in the past with no acceptable response.
I bought a NMMA CERTIFIED boat. I expect Maxum to have built it up to the NMMA standard, I expect if they failed to do so originally they will now as it is brought up to them "make it right." Maxum's response to this omission is requested.
(NMMA 312-946-6200)

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

E-mail received from Maxum/USMarine Nov 9 2001

Dear James:

"We are responding to your E-mail regarding the missing fuse protection on the alternator to battery and charger to battery connections. A meeting was held to discuss and determine our response to the concerns you have raised. The meeting involved representatives from out engineering, manufacturing, and customer service groups. We are in the process of verifying what we believe to be true. The 4600 ( YE ) Maxum Sport Yacht's electrical system drawings included the fuse protection. Once we have determined the extent of the omission of the fuse protection and our obligation, we will inform you of our course of action. You will hear from us on or before Friday, November 16th." (2001)

Sincerely, Ross Robinson
Senior Service Manager, USMarine

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

E-mail received from Maxum/USMarine Nov 9 2001

Dear James:

Our previous response to your inquires did not address the issue of the 120 amp isolators being adequate for their application. We brought this concern to the manufacturer of the isolator and they do not see the application as a problem or threat to the isolator.

Based on the ABYC code 9.11.2.1 the port and starboard starters require protection ( 2 ), and the port and starboard battery switch sides require protection ( 2 ). Based on the exception to 9.11.2.2 , the port and starboard alternator and the charger do not require fuse protection. Thus we see a total of four ( 4 ) fuses needed to bring us into compliance.

The sheathing is not a requirement once the proper fuse protection is complied with.

As we stated in our previous E-mail, we are continuing to determine our obligation and course of action. We appreciate your patience as we pursue our response.

Sincerely, Ross Robinson
Senior Service Manager

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


E-mail received from Maxum/USMarine Nov 16 2001


Hi Jim....I hope this E-mail finds you and your family well and geared up for the Thanksgiving holiday.

I have been sitting through the meetings that have been organized to discuss the fuse protection issue. As it stands, we feel there is merit to your inquiry and that, as a company, we will need to go out with something to the owners of the boats involved. We are presently looking at the installations with various engine options etc. to make sure we understand the correction needed in each application.

I hope to enlist Charlie Life's help in the weeks to come (next week most of us are out for the holiday) to nail down the specifics. We have been aboard your boat and have seen first hand your installation. If you would like, we can put together a kit to correct your boat and help with any labor assistance that might be needed. Just let us know.

We will continue to keep you appraised of our progress....best regards!!

(Dave Crosby) USMarine

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


From: James

To: dcrosby@usmarine.com,
cspeegle@usmarine.com,
tlatham@usmarine.com,
dsommerv@usmarine.com,
dheiss@usmarine.com
cc:
Subject: Fwd: 98% there on our Maxum 4600

Thanks for forwarding us the E-mail from Karen Ledder. I meant to send you an E-mail late last week to let you know we continue to meet, now three times a week to review the fuse situation. Last week we looked at every cut slip for every boat and I can tell you we are on the edge of a final decision. I know I probably sound like a broken record but we really want to make sure we are taking the prudent steps with this deal. I will contact you as soon as we go along.

Best regards!!

PS: Tom Latham is no longer a member of our company. Please pull him from your list.

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

Ref: Unsafe conditions existing on some US Marine
(Maxum Sports Yachts):
As well as possibly Bayliner Yachts

I am James Clausen, am the owner of the 46' Motor Yacht "Summer School" manufactured by Maxum, an operating company of US Marine, which is owned by Brunswick Corporation. Our boats hull number is BVKA14YEH899, built in August of 1998 in Salisbury Maryland at the Maxum Plant,2305 Northwood Dr. Salisbury MD 21801, 410-546-4656.

During my ownership I have had an opportunity to get involved with Maxum, as well as other owners and during these past years have become knowledgeable about my boats operation and design. I have previously located improperly designed and installed wiring to the alternators on specific Maxum Diesel boats, and working with Maxum, Maxum set up a mailing to correct the Maxum owners and offered to correct the problem. I have for a period in excess of Eighteen Months tried to work with Maxum on additional wiring problems I have found in their boats with limited results.

I am herein asking for your help in resolving these perceived dangerous situations, which I will attempt to outline for you below.

(1) Contradictory and inaccurate electrical wiring diagrams.
Maxum has supplied to the owners of their "Sports Yachts" with contradictory and inaccurate wiring diagrams, which unless physically checked on each boat would lead the owner to believe that their boat is properly wired. Maxum has had knowledge of this for over one year and has done nothing to correct the situation or notify owners of the problem.



(2) Missing Fuses.
I pointed out to Maxum's Electrical Engineers, three of them, that there were fuses shown in the Maxum Electrical Drawings that were not installed in our boat, ABYC Section E-9.11 as shown on figure 11, and figure 15. Maxum has verified the lack of fuses in our boat. Maxum has reviewed the Maxum/US Marine "boat build book" and verified that the (4) fuses shown in the Maxum drawing were indeed to have been installed in the 4600 SCB boats. Maxum has further verified that no 4600 SCB has had these fuses installed and further suspects that NO Maxum yacht ever made has ever had theses fuses installed. (This also may carry over into the Bayliner Line)
In a message dated 11/9/01 3:58:01 PM, rrobinso@usmarine.com writes: That he agrees that there are (4)-missing fuses on the 4600 SCB Maxum boats.


(3) Missing wiring.
Ground wire from the inverter battery to the negative battery bus is missing on many boats. This missing wire prevents the inverter battery from recharging without a source of AC power, and prohibits it from recharging from the engine alternators via the battery isolator.


(4) Inadequate ratings on installed devices.
Further, your battery isolator is rated for 120 amps on its nameplate. The alternator supplied with the engine is rated to supply 130 amps. Actual test current is 142 to 143 amps. I have contacted the vendor of this battery isolator. I am satisfied that there is little danger due to this unfortunate mistake, but I again bring it to your attention and ask for a time is of the essence decision as to how you intend to proceed to correct this additional problem.
Mr. Robinson, regarding the 120 amp rated isolator used in a circuit rated at producing 130 amps, which in fact was measured producing in excess of 140 amps. I find your statement that "you have contacted the manufacturer of the isolator and they do not see the application as a problem or threat to the isolator." This statement misses the point; the rating of this isolator is inadequate for the application, period. Your response in addressing a position other than that of "will the isolator fail" is required. I suspect we can agree that you would not put a switch rated at 5 amps in a circuit that draws 15 amps? Your previous engineer agreed that he did not know that the alternators rating had been increased to 130 amps in the 450C engine. Hence the original use of the 120 amp isolator. Additionally, I have also spoken to "the manufacturer of the isolator" and I feel confident with their assessment that "they do not see the application as a problem or threat to the isolator." Again this is not the point; the point is "the lack of design" since the larger 130-amp alternator was never considered in the design of this 120-amp circuit



(5) "Unsheathed" wiring.
The sheathing is a requirement of ABYC 9.11.2.1 to which you are using exception 2. This exception specifically states, and I paraphrase here. If you are not providing a fuse between the alternator and a connection source other than a battery the conductor must be sheathed, the proper fuse protection has no bearing, as you are using the exception NOT TO fuse this side of the isolator. I have sent Trevor Richardson a fax on this drawing from the ABYC manual for his review.
Referring to the alternator power wiring. As the exception to 9.11.2.2 states, the wire must be sheathed, which it is not.


In an attempt to solve these problems without outside assistance I have invited Maxum's Electrical Engineer down to our boat months ago. At that time we discussed the ABYC and NMMA Electrical Standards pertaining to the Maxum boats as well as reviewed electrical drawings for the Maxum 4600 SCB. Trevor Richardson, Maxum's electrical engineer has agreed that, the (4) main power fuses shown in the Maxum Owners Supplement book are missing.


Please consider that this is a "time is of the essence" situation in order to identify the fix to this oversight. Maxum and I both agree that there is missing fuse protection. This is a safety hazard that it must be corrected at once on all the boats in the Maxum line with this wiring.


Maxum has stated in a message dated 11/9/01 8:36:08 AM, rrobinso@usmarine.com writes: that "You will hear from us on or before Friday, November 16th." I have, but you have failed to address the solution you have alluded to. It is my understanding that Trevor Richardson is now looking through the electrical drawing and matching them with how the boats were actually built via physical inspection of different models and engine configurations. I expect that this will be done as he has contemplated in mid December. (2001)

I bought a NMMA CERTIFIED boat. I expect Maxum to have built it up to the NMMA standard, I expect if they failed to do so originally they will now as it is brought up to them "make it right." Yours as well as Maxum's response to these omissions is requested.

James


Here is the US Coast Guards findings reguarding US Marines letter of intent:

OFFICE OF BOATING SAFETY G-OPB
Analysis of 02011S Issues.


Issue 1. 33 CFR 183.410(a) Ignition Protection: US Marine has installed over-current fuses in the engine room that do not comply with this regulation.
Action: US marine proposes to replace these non-compliant fuses on existing units and correct future production.


Issue 2. 33 CFR 183.445(b) Overcurrent protection US Marine has identified conductors from the battery to the battery charger that do not meet the above regulation. The battery chargers terminals or studs
are exposed.
Action: on existing products provide an insulating boot. Correct future production.


Issue 3. 33 CFR 183.455(b) overcurrent protection of conductors
Conductor 1. From load side of battery switch to windlass circuit breaker Over seven inches but less than forty. Not sheathed.
Conductor 2. Load side of battery switch to
a. Battery charger circuit breaker or fuse.
b. DC Main circuit breaker or fuse
c. Davit Circuit breaker or fuse.
d. Battery Monitor circuit breaker or fuse
This conductor is longer than seven inches but less than twenty inches and is not sheathed.
Conductor 3. Battery charger to Battery Switch. Longer than seven inches but less than forty inches. No sheathing or over current protection.
Action: Conductors 1, 2, 3:


Conductor 4. Connects alternator charge output to the DC positive system via the starter post. Length of the conductor is greater than 72 inches. No sheathing or over current protection,
Action: Supply an in-Line fuse kit to be placed on existing units to provide ignition protection on existing units. The source of power for conductors 1, 2, and 3 is the battery switch. If measure from the battery switch to the load the conductors are less than 72 inches.


Did everyone get this? Do you understand it? Do you have any questions? I do!

This is from US Marine, to the owners of effected Gasoline Powered boats. Remember no Diesel boats are to be covered even though the same defects may exist...

Posted 12/26/2002
Dear James:

We understand you are interested in posting the information we have prepared for a recall involving one to three items on some of our product.
Attached are drafts of the owner letter and the instructions. We are awaiting the supply of certified ignition protected components to initiate this campaign.
(See attached file: OwnerLtr7-22-02.doc.)
(See attached file: Issue #1 Ignition Protected Current Limiters.doc)
(Seeattached file: Issue #2 Batt. Charger Missing Boots.doc)
(See attachedfile: Issue #3 Insert Over Current Protection.doc)
Ross.Robinson@bcfamilyboats.com

Open all (4) of these documents to see Maxum's recall letters to owners.
Please note that these are all Microsoft Word documents,
(Enable Micros) when opening them to view all.

OwnerLtr7-22-02.doc.
Issue#1IgnitionProtec#6655C.doc
Issue#2Batt.ChargerMi#6655D.doc
Issue#3InsertOverCurr#6655E.doc

My personal reply to this letter follows:

To:
US Coast Guard Recreational Safety Commission
Office of Boating

Attn: Boating Safety
Mr. Peter Eikenberry 202-267-6894


From:
James
Orlando, FL

Ref: Case #020142T and our previous letter of inquiry

Case #020142T involves electrical problems in numerous Maxum, Bayliner, US Marine models, built at different "MIC" plants, such as BVK, BL2, BLB, USD and MXY, powered by "Gasoline" engines. Please be aware that in these listed model numbers, there may be "Diesel" engine boats that US Marine feels are exempt from this case. In my most recent call to US Marine, US Marines position for this exclusion is; Title 33 US Code of Federal regulations, Subpart 1 - Electrical Systems General, 183.401 (a) which states "This subpart applies to all boats the have gasoline engine…"
Further it was stated that US Marine felt that this exempted any Diesel powerboats in that recall case.
A note is in order here involving the models identified by US Marine, it is my understanding that some Maxum/US Marine models 4188(YB) and 4688(YE) were also built with Gasoline engines and that the problems identified in this recall case #020142T may also apply to them, they are not listed. Maxum 3585(YJ) and 3585(YS) were built in more recent years are models I have no intimate knowledge of. I respectfully ask that this be reviewed.

It is my contention that US Marine is incorrect; and that Title 46, United States Code, Chapter 43 applies here for the Diesel powered boats manufactured by them. Please note that it was the United States Code, which originally created the Code of Federal Regulations and provides authority to you in this case. The electrical wiring problems are of such a nature to be in non-compliance with ABYC and NMMA code at the time of manufacture and contain defects which create a substantial risk to the boater and their guests.

Title 46 United States Code, Chapter 43

4307. Prohibited acts

(a) A person may not -


(1) manufacture, construct, assemble, sell or offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States, a recreational vessel, associated equipment, or component of the vessel or equipment unless -

(A)(i) it conforms with this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter; and

(ii) it does not contain a defect which has been identified, in communication to such person by the Secretary or the manufacturer of that vessel, equipment or component, as creating a substantial risk of personal injury to the public;


4310. Repair and replacement of defects

(b) If a recreational vessel or associated equipment has left the place of manufacture and the recreational vessel manufacturer discovers or acquires information that the manufacturer decides, in the
exercise of reasonable and prudent judgment, indicates that a recreational vessel or associated equipment subject to applicable regulation prescribed under section 4302 of this title either fails to comply with the regulation, or contains a defect that creates
a substantial risk of personal injury to the public, the manufacturer shall provide notification of the defect or failure of compliance as provided by subsections (c) and (d) of this section within a reasonable
time after the manufacturer has discovered the defect.

,
Member, Maxum Owners Group, www.maxumowners.org

____________

US Coast Guard letter of 1/28/2003 follows:

020142T
020111S
28 January 2003

MS JEANETTE HAMILTON
BRUNSWICK FAMILY BOAT CO
PO BOX 9029
EVERETT WA 98206

Dear Ms. Hamilton

This is in reference to two US Marine defect cases. The first is 020111 S, involving numerous models with fuses that were not ignition protected, lack of boot, nipples or covers on conductors from the battery to the battery charger and conductors that did not have over current protection within the required distances (enclosure 1). Second; on August 15, 2002 1 wrote a letter to Mr., David Crosby concerned a consumer report of a potential defect on a 46 foot Maxum. owned by James Clausen, given case number 020142T. I received a reply from Mr. Ross Robinson dated August 21, 2002. The problems with Mr. Clausen's boat appeared to be the same as the problems in case #020111 S, except it is a diesel powered boat. Mr. Robinson replied that the items on Mr. Clausen's boat needed "inspection/correction" and would be done under case #020111 S. I have enclosed copies of the correspondence (Enclosure 2) on Mr. Clausen's boat. I am going to consolidate this under case #020111 S.

Since then I have been informed by Mr. Clausen that the correction has not been done on his boat, and that he was told that since it is a diesel it was not necessary to correct the lack of over current protection. As this boat was designed to have over current protection to protect the conductors from the danger of fire, and since the boat does not have that protection, then a condition exists in which a fire could occur. While this may not be as catastrophic as on a gasoline powered boat, it still "contains a defect that creates a substantial risk of personal injury to the public", as defined in Title 46 United States Code Sec 43 1 0(b). If a vessel contains such a defect the manufacturer is required by Title 46 USC 43 1 0(d) to correct the defect. The United States Code makes no distinction as to type of power or fuel used in the boat. If the boat contains a defect as defined in 46 USC 43 10 then the manufacturer must correct the defect.

In addition, I have also received an e-mail from a Mr. Nick Starace concerning this problem on his/2000 Maxum 4100 SCB. A copy of that e-mail is enclosed. (Enclosure 3)

I have not received any Campaign Update Reports concerning campaign 020111 S. I received the Defect/Noncompliance report on July 31, 2002. Update reports were due Sept 30, 2002, and December 30, 2002.

Please advise me as to when you intend to correct this problem on Mr. Clausen's boat. I am also concerned that this problem may exist on other vessels of this model. Your comments as to the extent of any similar occurrences, and how you intend to correct this problem would be
appreciated. Please provide a response by February 28, 2003 referencing case number 020111S

Thank you for your cooperation in the interests of boating safety.

Sincerely,

PETER D. EIKENBERRY
Engineer, Recreational Boating
Product Assurance Division
By direction of the Commandant

Enclosures

Copy: Boating Administrator, Washington
Mr. James Clausen.

Page 2 of 2

End, US Coast Guard Letter of 1/28/2003:

****************************************

Manufacturer Identification Code MXG Details for Recall Number 020202T

Number: 020202T MIC: MXG
Company: MAXUM MARINE Company Official: BRUNSWICK FAMILY BOAT CO
Model Name: 2955 SCR SUN CRUISER Model Year: 2000-01
Problem 1: ISOLATION BULKHEAD
Problem 2:
HIN: Case Open Date: 11/05/2002
Disposition: OPEN Case Close Date:
Units: 453 Campaign Open Date: 11/05/2002
Boat Type: 13 Campaign Close Date:
Severity: L
Comments: FUMES FROM FUEL TANK COMPARTMENT MAY ENTER CABIN AREA.

****************************************

Manufacturer Identification Code MXP Details for Recall Number 010122T

Number: 010122T MIC: MXP
Company: MAXUM MARINE Company Official: US MARINE
Model Name: 2100SD DECK BOAT Model Year: 2001
Problem 1: ENGINE ROOM BHD NOT SEALED
Problem 2:
HIN: Case Open Date: 07/03/2001
Disposition: OPEN Case Close Date:
Units: 91 Campaign Open Date: 07/03/2001
Boat Type: 13 Campaign Close Date:
Severity: H
Comments: 010703 TELCON FROM BAYLINER - SENT FORMS. 010802 RCVD LIST OF HINS. ISOLATION BULKHEADS P/S NOT PROPERLY SEALED; POTENTIAL FOR FUEL VAPORS TO ENTER AREAS WITH NON-IGNITION PROTECTED DEVICES. HINS MXPA01NWA101 - MXPA91NWD101. 011002 CUR 1 RCVD. 020117 CUR 2 RCVD. 020327 CUR 3 RCVD. 020702 CUR 4 RCVD. 020924 CUR 5 RCVD.

****************************************

Manufacturer Identification Code MXP Details for Recall Number 010178S

Number: 010178S MIC: MXP
Company: MAXUM MARINE Company Official: US MARINE
Model Name: 3000 SCR SUNCRUISER Model Year: 1997-01
Problem 1: ISOLATION BULKHEAD
Problem 2:
HIN: Case Open Date: 11/16/2001
Disposition: OPEN Case Close Date:
Units: 776 Campaign Open Date: 11/16/2001
Boat Type: 13 Campaign Close Date:
Severity: L
Comments: RECEIVED FAX 011116. SENT FORMS. MAXUM MARINE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ISOLATION BULKHEAD USED TO SEPERATE THE PORT FUEL TANK FROM THE CABIN AREA IN 1997 - 2001 MAXUM 3000 SCR SUN CRUISERS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH USCG REGULATIONS. THEY ARE RECALLING THE BOATS TO CORRECTLY SEAL THE PORT CLOSEOUT AREA. IF GASOLINE FUMES WERE PRESENT IN THE FUEL TANK COMPARTMENT THEY COULD LEAK INTO THE CABIN. NEWER BOATS HAVE MIC (MXP); OLDER ONES (BL1) AND (BL2). 011702 CUR 1 RCVD. 020418 CUR 2 RCVD. 020718 CUR 3 RCVD.

****************************************

Manufacturer Identification Code USP Details for Recall Number 910392T

Number: 910392T MIC: USP
Company: MAXUM MARINE Company Official:
Model Name: I/O MODELS Model Year: 1989-90
Problem 1: BLOWER FUSE WRONG SIZE
Problem 2:
HIN: Case Open Date: 12/27/1989
Disposition: CLOSED Case Close Date: 02/08/1991
Units: 0 Campaign Open Date:
Boat Type: Campaign Close Date:
Severity: L
Comments: SEE 90963TALL 1ST PURCHASERS NOTIFIED

****************************************

Material printed here represents the observations, opinions, and theories of Maxum owners and marine professionals and is published in this Maxum Owners page for review by other Maxum Owners and marine professionals only. It is not a defect notice unless specifically stated that it is, and does not in all cases express the opinion of the publisher. The accuracy of the information is not warranted by the publisher or its subscribers. Reprinting or publication of any information appearing in MaxumOwner.org is prohibited without the express written consent of the publisher.

---