Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55199

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Subchapters S

[CGD 97–066]

Federal Requirements for Education in

Recreational Boating Safety

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

recreational boaters to take courses in

boating safety. It will consider all

comments and will consult with the

National Boating Safety Advisory

Council (NBSAC) in determining how

best to reduce the number of deaths

among boaters caused by a lack of

boating safety training.

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 97–066]

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:

Mike Moore, Project Manager, Office of

Boating Safety, Program Development

and Implementation Division (202) 267–

0577. 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

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, these

accidents still cause more deaths than

any other transportation related activity

except use of roads. These accidents

caused 830 deaths in 1995. Eighty-nine

percent of fatalities, in accidents

involving operators whose level of

education the Coast Guard could

ascertain, occurred on vessels whose

operators had no boating safety

education. Most fatal boating accidents

were due to hazardous waters, weather,

operators’ inattention, operators’

inexperience, excessive speed, behavior

of passenger and water-skiers, and

overloading. Current nationally

recognized courses in boating safety

address these conditions.

Each year the Coast Guard sponsors a

national safe boating campaign based on

educational methods aimed at

encouraging boaters to take courses in

boating safety. Such nonregulatory

methods of modifying behavior may 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 boating safety education, 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

participate in boating safety education.

In particular, the Coast Guard

encourages you to answer the specific

questions 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 boating safety education.

Please include your name and

address, identify this notice [CGD 97–

066] and 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. Recreational Boating by Commenter

1. How much risk do you believe

recreational boating involves?

2. Do you agree with the following

statement: If I went recreational boating,

I would feel safe because I knew the

basic rules of the road (navigational

rules) pertaining to the waters I would

be using?

3. Would a requirement for taking a

course in boating safety 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. He or she may own,

rent, or be a passenger on a boat; the

boat may be powered by hand, sail, or

motor; and the reason for boating may

be relaxation, transportation,

competition, or excitement. Please tell

us something about your boating,

including how often you go boating,

what kind of boating you do, and the

kind of water on which you go boating.

5. Please tell us about your experience

with recreational boating safety

education to this date.

B. Mandatory Recreational BoatingSafety Education

1. Several States have imposed

various requirements for recreational

boating safety education—by children

under 12 years of age, aboard personal

watercraft, and so on. What Federal

requirements, if any, should the Coast

Guard propose for taking courses in

boating safety that would ensure

uniformity around the country? Should

the Coast Guard propose Federal

requirements for children, for specific

waterways, for personal watercraft, or

for any other appropriate category of

boaters or boating?

2. What Federal requirements, if any,

for taking a course in boating safety

should the Coast Guard propose because

of higher fatalities in one or more

categories of boater, boating, or

conditions?

3. What Federal requirements, if any,

for taking a course in boating safety

should the Coast Guard propose because

of higher fatalities involving one or

more sizes or kinds of recreational

vessels?

4. Statistics for 1995 indicate that

there were 66 fatalities for youths under

17 years of age while engaged in

recreational boating. What Federal

requirements, if any, for taking courses

in boating safety should the Coast Guard

propose because of higher fatalities

corresponding to the ages of the

victims?

5. A survey of States’ boating laws

conducted in 1996 by NASBLA revealed

that 20 States impose mandatory boating

safety education on youths of various

ages. What Federal requirements, if any,

should the Coast Guard propose for

youths of certain ages to take courses in

boating safety before operating vessels?

6. If you know of an instance where

a person did not take a course in boating
55200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

safety, but where the person or you later

wished that person had taken one,

please describe the instance.

7. If you know of instances where

safety may make taking a course in

boating safety unacceptable or

undesirable, please describe them.

8. Are your aware of the intended

uses and limits of the various kinds of

courses in boating safety (classroom,

home study, computer) and kinds of

evaluations (proctored exams, nonproctored ones) approved by the Coast

Guard?

9. What Federal requirements, if any,

should the Coast Guard propose for

boaters engaged in any particular

activities to take courses in boating

safety under any conditions?

10. Describe any other boaters,

boating, or conditions on whose

members the Coast Guard should

propose Federal requirements to take

courses in boating safety.

C. General

1. What benefits (in terms of personal

safety or other terms) do you think

would accrue from Federal

requirements to take courses in boating

safety? What cost (in terms of money,

paperwork, inconvenience, or other

terms) would accrue from such

requirements? Would the cost outweigh

the benefits?

2. Please describe any nonregulatory

ways to reduce the number of

recreational boating deaths due to a lack

of boating safety training, 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 reduce

the number of deaths due to recreational

boating with lower cost to, or lesser

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: October 17, 1997.

Ernest R. Riutta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–28100 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 20

RIN 2900–AI87

Board of Veterans’ Appeals: Rules of

Practice—Continuation of

Representation Following Death of a

Claimant or Appellant

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the

Rules of Practice of the Board of

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to eliminate a

rule which automatically assigns a

deceased appellant’s representative to

the appellant’s survivor. This change is

necessary because of a court ruling

which eliminates the need for such a

provision.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI87.’’ All

written comments will be available for

public inspection at the above address

in the Office of Regulations

Management, Room 1158, between the

hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday (except holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Keller, Chief Counsel, Board

of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420 (202–565–

5978).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

is an administrative body that decides

appeals from denials of claims for

veterans’ benefits.

Currently, Rule 611 (38 CFR 20.611)

provides that a person or organization

properly designated to represent a

claimant or appellant will be recognized

as the representative of his or her

survivors for a period of one year

following the death of the claimant or

appellant. This provision was deemed

necessary to ensure continuity of

representation, since Rule 1302 (38 CFR

20.1302) previously provided that,

when an appeal is pending before the

Board at the time of the appellant’s

death, the Board could complete its

action on the issues properly before it

without application from the survivors.

In Smith (Irma) v. Brown, No. 95–898

(Vet. App. June 13, 1997), the U.S. Court

of Veterans Appeals ruled that former

Rule 1302 is invalid because, pursuant

to the court’s ruling in Landicho v.

Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994), a

pending claim for compensation

benefits under chapter 11 of title 38,

United States Code, does not survive the

claimant’s death. Thus, when an

appellant dies prior to the promulgation

of the Board’s decision with regard to a

compensation claim, the Board no

longer has jurisdiction of the appeal,

and the appeal must be dismissed. Rule

1302 has been amended to provide that

an appeal pending when the veteran

dies will be dismissed. Similarly, Rule

611 was amended to eliminate a

provision permitting a deceased

appellant’s representative to continue to

act with respect to any appeal pending

upon the death of the appellant.

Because there is no longer any need

to provide for continuous

representation, we propose to eliminate

Rule 611.

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This

rule will affect only the processing of

claims by VA and will not affect small

businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is

exempt from the initial and final

regulatory flexibility analyses

requirements of §§ 603 and 604.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 20

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Veterans.

Approved: October 8, 1997.

Hershel W. Gober,

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 20 is proposed to

be amended as set forth below:

PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS’

APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a).

Subpart G—Representation

§ 20.611 [Removed]

2. In subpart G, § 20.611 is removed

and reserved.

[FR Doc. 97–28058 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P