50280 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(e) Medical source opinions on issues

reserved to the Commissioner. Opinions

on some issues, such as the examples

that follow, are not medical opinions, as

described in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, but are, instead, opinions on

issues reserved to the Commissioner

because they are administrative findings

that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that

would direct the determination or

decision of disability.

* * * * *

(2) Other opinions on issues reserved

to the Commissioner. We use medical

sources, including your treating source,

to provide evidence, including

opinions, on the nature and severity of

your impairment(s). Although we

consider opinions from medical sources

on issues such as whether your

impairment(s) meets or equals the

requirements of any impairment(s) in

the Listing of Impairments in appendix

1 to subpart P of part 404 of this

chapter, your residual functional

capacity (see §§ 416.945 and 416.946),

or the application of vocational factors,

the final responsibility for deciding

these issues is reserved to the

Commissioner.

(3) We will not give any special

significance to the source of an opinion

on issues reserved to the Commissioner

described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)

of this section.

(f) Opinions of nonexamining sources.

We consider all evidence from

nonexamining sources to be opinion

evidence. When we consider the

opinions of nonexamining sources, we

apply the rules in paragraphs (a)

through (e) of this section. In addition,

the following rules apply to State

agency medical and psychological

consultants, other program physicians

and psychologists, and medical experts

we consult in connection with

administrative law judge hearings and

Appeals Council review.

* * * * *

(2) Administrative law judges are

responsible for reviewing the evidence

and making findings of fact and

conclusions of law. They will consider

opinions of State agency medical or

psychological consultants, other

program physicians and psychologists,

and medical experts as follows:

(i) Administrative law judges are not

bound by any findings made by State

agency medical or psychological

consultants, or other program

physicians or psychologists. However,

State agency medical and psychological

consultants and other program

physicians and psychologists are highly

qualified physicians and psychologists

who are also experts in Social Security

disability evaluation. Therefore,

administrative law judges must consider

findings of State agency medical and

psychological consultants or other

program physicians or psychologists,

except for the ultimate determination

about whether you are disabled. See

§ 416.912(b)(6).

(ii) When administrative law judges

consider findings of State agency

medical or psychological consultants or

other program physicians or

psychologists, they will evaluate the

findings using relevant factors in

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

section, such as the medical or

psychological consultants’, or other

program physicians’ or psychologists’,

medical specialty and expertise in our

rules, the evidence reviewed by the

consultants or other program physicians

or psychologists, supporting

explanations provided by the

consultants or other program physicians

or psychologists, and any other factors

relevant to the weighing of the opinions.

The administrative law judge must

explain in the decision the weight given

to the opinions of a State agency

medical or psychological consultant or

other program physician or

psychologist, as the administrative law

judge must do for any opinions from

treating sources, nontreating sources,

and nonexamining sources who do not

work for us.

(iii) Administrative law judges may

also ask for and consider opinions from

medical experts on the nature and

severity of your impairment(s) and on

whether your impairment(s) equals the

requirements of any impairment listed

in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404

of this chapter. When administrative

law judges consider these opinions, they

will evaluate them using the rules in

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–25366 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 175

[CGD 97–059]

Recreational Boating Safety—Federal

Requirements for Wearing Personal

Flotation Devices

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks

comments from interested people,

groups, and businesses about the need

for, and alternatives to, Federal

requirements or incentives for boaters to

wear lifejackets. It will consider all

comments, and consult with the

National Boating Safety Advisory

Council (NBSAC) in determining how

best to reduce the number of boaters

who drown.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before February 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA, 3406) [CGD 97–059],

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW, Washington, DC

20593–0001, or deliver them to room

3406 at the same address between 9:30

a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is 202–267–1477.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this notice. Comments,

and documents as indicated in this

preamble, will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carlton Perry, Project Manager, Office of

Boating Safety, Program Management

Division, (202) 267–0979. You may

obtain a copy of this notice by calling

the U.S. Coast Guard Infoline at 1–800–

368–5647, or read it on the Internet, at

the Web Site for the Office of Boating

Safety, at URL address

www.uscgboating.org/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

Most people who die in recreational

boating accidents drown; but most of

the victims would have survived if they

had worn lifejackets. Through its

Recreational Boating Safety Program,

the Coast Guard tries to reduce the

number of recreational boating

accidents. Although recreational use of

water has caused fewer and fewer

deaths over the last 20 years, boating

accidents still cause more deaths than

any other transportation related activity

except use of roads. Boating accidents

caused over 800 deaths in 1995, over

600 of them through drowning.

Although 68 victims drowned while

wearing lifejackets, 561 victims

drowned while not wearing them.

Nobody knows how many of the 561

victims would have survived if they had

worn lifejackets. There is evidence to

suggest that factors other than drowning

were the primary cause of death for

most of the 68 victims who died

wearing lifejackets. On the contrary, the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50281

best way to minimize the number of

deaths due to drowning is to maximize

the number of boaters wearing

lifejackets.

Each year the Coast Guard sponsors a

national boating safety campaign based

on educational methods aimed at

encouraging boaters to wear lifejackets.

Realistically, such nonregulatory

methods of modifying behavior will not

by themselves be fully successful.

However, the Coast Guard knows from

data on boating accidents that State

efforts, based on regulatory methods

aimed at waterskiing and operation of

personal watercraft, have been

extremely successful.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

submit comments about the need for,

and alternatives to, Federal

requirements or incentives for boaters to

wear lifejackets (personal flotation

devices, or PFDs). In particular, the

Coast Guard encourages you to answer

the specific questions about these

requirements or incentives for wearing

lifejackets, which it developed in

consultation with members of NBSAC at

the meeting in April 1997. The Coast

Guard also solicits comments from all

segments of the boating community,

State boating safety authorities, NBSAC,

the National Association of State

Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA),

and other interested people, groups, and

businesses on the economic and other

impacts of Federal requirements or

incentives for wearing PFDs.

Please include your name and

address, identify this notice [CGD 97–

059], the specific question or area of

concern to which each comment

applies, and give the reason(s) for each

comment. Please submit two copies of

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, to help us with copying and

electronic filing. If you want us to

acknowledge receipt of your comments,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope.

A. Boating Activity of Commenter.

1. How much risk do you believe

recreational boating involves?

2. Do you agree with the following

statement: If I fell overboard, I would

feel just as safe if someone threw me a

lifering or a buoyant cushion (Type IV

PFD) as I would feel if I have been

wearing a standard jacket style (Type, I,

II, III, or V PFD)?

3. Would a requirement for wearing a

PFD likely affect your participation in

recreational boating, and how would it

affect it?

4. Recreational boating varies widely

depending on the interest of the

individual boater. Individuals may own,

rent or be a passenger on a boat; the boat

may be manual, sail, or motor powered;

the reason for boating may be for

relaxation, transportation, competition,

or excitement. Please tell us something

about your recreational boating activity,

including how often you go boating,

what type of boating activities you do,

and the type of water on which you go

boating.

5. Please tell us what type of PFD you

carry when you go boating, whether or

not you or other passengers wear a PFD,

and the reason(s) for wearing or not

wearing a PFD.

B. Mandatory wearing of PFDs.

1. Several States have imposed

various requirements for wearing

PFDs—by children, during waterskiing,

aboard personal watercarft, and so on.

What Federal requirements should the

Coast Guard propose, if any, for wearing

PFDs to ensure uniformity around the

country? Should the Coast Guard

propose Federal requirements only in

those States with no requirements for

children, while waterskiing, aboard a

personal watercraft, or for any other

appropriate category of boaters or

boating activity?

2. What Federal requirements for

wearing PFDs should the Coast Guard

propose, if any, based directly on higher

fatality statistics in one or more

categories of boaters, boating activities,

or boating conditions?

3. What Federal requirements for

wearing PFDs should the Coast Guard

propose, if any, based directly on higher

fatality statistics involving one or more

sizes or types of recreational vessels?

4. What Federal requirements for

wearing PFDs should the Coast Guard

propose, if any, based directly on higher

fatality statistics related to ages of the

victims?

5. A survey of State boating laws

conducted in 1996 by NASBLA, under

a Coast Guard grant, revealed that 25

States imposed requirements for the

wearing of PFDs by children under

various ages (from under 13, down to

under 6). What Federal requirements

should the Coast Guard propose, if any,

specifying an age below which children

must wear PFDs during any activities or

under any conditions?

6. Statistics for 1995 show that 476

(75%) of the 629 drowning victims were

non-swimmers. What Federal

requirements should the Coast Guard

propose, if any, for non-swimmers to

wear PFDs during any boating activities

or under any boating conditions? How

would boaters or law enforcement

agencies determine who is a swimmer

and who is a non-swimmer?

7. If you know of an instance where

a person did not wear a PFD, but where

that person or you later wished that

person had worn one, please describe

the instance.

8. If you know of instances where

safety makes wearing PFDs

unacceptable or undesirable, please

describe them.

9. Are you aware of the intended uses

and limitations of the various types

(Type I, II, III, IV, V) of PFDs and kinds

of PFD flotation (inherently buoyant,

hybrid inflatable, fully inflatable)

approved by the Coast Guard?

10. What Federal requirements should

the Coast Guard propose, if any, that

boaters engaged in any particular

activities wear PFDs under any

conditions?

11. Describe any other boating

activities, conditions, or categories

under which the Coast Guard should

propose Federal requirements that all

boaters, or specific groups of boaters,

wear PFDs.

C. General.

1. What benefits (in terms of personal

safety or in other terms) do you think

would accrue from Federal

requirements to wear PFDs? What costs

(in terms of money, paperwork,

inconvenience, or other terms) would

accrue from such requirements? Would

the costs outweigh the benefits?

2. Please describe any nonregulatory

ways to reduce the number of deaths by

drowning at lower costs or with less

burden than Federal requirements

would entail.

3. Is there any other information you

feel may help the Coast Guard to reduce

the number of deaths by drowning with

the lowest costs to, or least burden on,

the Coast Guard itself, the States, and,

most of all, boaters?

The Coast Guard will summarize all

comments it receives during the

comment period in response to this

notice, place a copy of the summary in

the public docket, and provide copies to

the members of NBSAC for them to

consider at their meeting in April, 1998.

It will itself consider all relevant

comments in the formulation of any

regulatory and nonregulatory measures

that may follow from this notice.

Dated: September 18, 1997.

Ernest R. Riutta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–25373 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M