Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25191

33 CFR Part 183

[CGD 95–041]

Propeller Accidents Involving

Houseboats and Other Displacement

Type Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Boating accidents involving

propeller strikes often generate a great

deal of interest and concern. As a result

of a serious accident involving a rented

houseboat which occurred in 1993, for

example, the Coast Guard has received

considerable correspondence seeking

the initiation of a rulemaking project to

establish mandatory requirements for

propeller guards on recreational

houseboats and other displacement-type

(non-planing) vessels, including those

leased by livery operations. The Coast

Guard wants to get an understanding of

the public’s present feelings about the

use of propeller guards or possible

alternatives to propeller guards on these

vessels. In order to identify and

consider the potential impacts such a

requirement may have on the boating

public, boat owners, boat operators,

manufacturers, and livery companies

leasing such vessels, the Coast Guard is

requesting comments from interested

parties.

DATES: Comments are requested by July

10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 95–041),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 3406 at the same address between

8 a.m. and 3 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

will become part of this docket and will

be available for inspection or copying at

room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Alston Colihan, Project Manager,

Auxiliary, Boating, and Consumer

Affairs Division, (202) 267–0981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

request for comments by submitting

written data, views or arguments.

Persons submitting comments should

include their names and addresses and

identify this notice (CGD 95–041).

Please submit two copies of all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

Background and Purpose

The Federal statutes in 46 U.S.C. 4302

which authorize the Coast Guard to

develop boating safety standards specify

that such standards must be based upon

a demonstrated need. In establishing a

need, the Coast Guard must:

(1) Consider the extent to which the

regulations or standards will contribute

to boating safety;

(2) Consider relevant available boating

safety standards, statistics and data,

including public and private research

and development, testing and

evaluation;

(3) Not compel substantial alteration

of a recreational vessel or equipment

that is in existence, or the construction

or manufacture of which is begun before

the effective date of the regulation, but

subject to that limitation may require

compliance or performance, to avoid a

substantial risk of injury to the public,

that the Secretary considers appropriate

in relation to the degree of hazard that

the compliance will correct; and

(4) Consult with the National Boating

Safety Advisory Council.

Current regulations in 33 CFR 173 and

174 require the operator of any vessel

numbered or used for recreational

purposes to file a Boating Accident

Report (BAR) if the vessel is involved in

an accident that results in: (1) Loss of

life; (2) personal injury which requires

medical treatment beyond first aid; (3)

damage to the vessel and other property

exceeding $500; or (4) complete loss of

the vessel. Boat operators are required to

report their accidents to authorities in

the State where the accident occurred,

or directly to the Coast Guard if the

accident occurred in Alaska. However,

ongoing research indicates only a small

percentage of reportable non-fatal

boating accidents are reported each

year.

Currently available data does not

support a need for Federal regulations to

require propeller guards on houseboats.

Over 31,000 boating accidents were

reported to the Coast Guard for the years

1989 to 1993. The BAR data base

indicates that 17 ‘‘Struck By Boat or

Propeller’’ accidents involving

houseboats were reported, with 16

injuries and one fatality. Three

accidents resulting in three injuries

were of the category, ‘‘Struck by Boat,’’

and 14 were of the category, ‘‘Struck by

Propeller,’’ and resulted in 13 injuries

and one fatality.

Solicitation of Views

The Coast Guard solicits comments

from all segments of the marine

community and other interested persons

on various aspects of propeller accident

avoidance, including: (1) The economic

and other impacts of establishing a

requirement for propeller guards on

recreational houseboats and other

displacement vessels; (2) suggestions on

alternatives to propeller guards which

should also be considered; (3)

recommendations on the applicability of

regulations; and (4) the concerns of the

recreational vessel livery and charter

industries.

Persons submitting comments should

do so as directed under Request for

Comments above, and specify the area(s)

of concern on which comments are

being submitted, state what impacts

may result from one or more alternatives

identified, suggest other alternatives,

and provide reasons to support the

information provided on potential

impact or suggested alternatives.

The Coast Guard will consider all

relevant comments in determining what

action may be necessary to address

propeller accidents involving

houseboats and other displacement-type

recreational vessels.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

G.A. Penington,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office

of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services.

[FR Doc. 95–11661 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 17

RIN 2900–AG58

Contract Program for Veterans With

Alcohol and Drug Dependence

Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In a document published in

the Federal Register on October 5, 1993

(58 FR 51799), the Department of

Veterans Affairs proposed to amend its

medical regulations concerning the

Contract Program for Veterans with

Alcohol and Drug Dependence

Disorders to incorporate by reference

the 1991 edition of the Life Safety Code.

This document hereby withdraws the

proposal. The 1991 edition of the Life

Safety Code has been superseded by a
25192 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1994 edition. Accordingly, in the near

future the Department will publish a

new proposal to incorporate by

reference the 1994 edition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Boies, Ph.D., Deputy Associate

Director for Addictive Disorders and

Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Veterans

Health Administration, Department of

Veterans Affairs, (202) 535–7316.

Approved: May 2, 1995.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–11574 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL–5205–8]

Ocean Dumping; Proposed Site

Modifications and Site Dedesignation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to modify

the designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) and to

dedesignate another ODMDS in the

Atlantic Ocean offshore Charleston,

South Carolina. The proposed

modifications are to extend the period

of use and to provide for improved

management of the Charleston Harbor

Deepening Project ODMDS. The

proposed dedesignation is for the

smaller Charleston ODMDS. These

proposed actions are necessary to

provide an environmentally acceptable

ocean disposal site for projects in the

Charleston area.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Wesley

B. Crum, Chief, Coastal Programs

Section, Water Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

W. Collins, 404/347–1740 ext. 4286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 102(c) of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the

Administrator of EPA the authority to

designate sites where ocean disposal

may be permitted. On December 23,

1986, the Administrator delegated the

authority to the Regional Administrator

of the Region in which sites are located.

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR

chapter I, subchapter H, § 228.11) state

that use of disposal sites may be

modified.

The Charleston Harbor Deepening

Project ODMDS was designated on

August 3, 1987 along with a smaller

Charleston ODMDS. A decision to

designate a small site for permanent use

at Charleston was based on projected

future disposal volumes and the ease of

monitoring. The larger Harbor

Deepening Project site, which was the

interim site, was designated for a sevenyear period and restricted to use for

Harbor Deepening material only. The

smaller, permanent Charleston ODMDS

lies within the boundaries of, and

completely in the western portion of,

the larger Charleston Harbor Deepening

Project ODMDS. The sites are defined

by the following coordinates:

Charleston Harbor Deepening Project

ODMDS;

32°38′06′′ N, 79°41′57′′ W;

32°40′42′′ N, 79°47′30′′ W;

32°39′04′′ N, 79°49′21′′ W;

32°36′28′′ N, 79°43′48′′ W.

Charleston ODMDS;

32°40′27′′ N, 79°47′22′′ W;

32°39′04′′ N, 79°44′25′′ W;

32°38′07′′ N, 79°45′03′′ W;

32°39′30′′ N, 79°48′00′′ W.

Recent on-site investigations have

revealed the presence of significant live

bottom resources within and around

both Charleston ODMDSs. These

resources are located primarily in the

western half of the smaller site and

along the southern boundary of the

larger site. While the effects of burial by

dredged material disposal are apparent,

the effects of nearby disposal

(particularly of fine material) on these

resources is yet to be determined.

Ongoing studies are being conducted to

determine whether recently disposed

fine materials are impacting these

resources. Until these studies are

complete, further disposal of all fine

material will be limited to the eastern

portion of the Charleston Harbor

Deepening Project ODMDS to prevent

interference with these studies and to

minimize further potential impacts.

On March 5, 1991 final rulemaking

was issued to modify the Charleston

Harbor Deepening ODMDS to allow

non-harbor deepening projects access to

this site. Since the smaller ODMDS was

the only site available at that time for

such projects, and the resources of

concern were located within that site, it

was determined that such a

modification was necessary for

continued disposal of Charleston Harbor

area projects in an environmentallyacceptable manner.

In March 1993, the EPA and the

Charleston District of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE) entered into

an agreement concerning the

management and monitoring of the

Charleston Harbor Deepening ODMDS.

This Site Management Plan (the Plan)

was the result of partnering of the

federal, state and local authorities who

have an interest in ocean disposal and

the protection of marine resources. The

Site Management and Monitoring Team

(the Team) jointly developed the Plan

which outlines specific management

and monitoring objectives for the

Charleston ODMDS. The Team meets

regularly to review the progress and

results of monitoring and makes

recommendations to EPA and the COE

on the management and regulation of

ocean disposal at the site. The current

five year monitoring effort has entered

its third year. Copies of the Plan, which

is scheduled for review in 1997, may be

obtained for review and comment from

either the EPA regional office or the

COE District office.

B. EIS Determination

EPA has voluntarily committed to

prepare Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS) in connection with the

designation of ocean disposal sites (39

FR 16186 (May 7, 1974)). The need for

an EIS in the case of modifications is

addressed in 39 FR 37420 (October 21,

1974), section 1(a)(4). If the change is

judged sufficiently substantial by the

responsible official, an EIS is needed.

The continued use of the Charleston

Harbor Deepening ODMDS is vital to the

management goals of the Plan. The

existence of natural resources within the

smaller ODMDS, by itself, should

preclude any further use of that site. By

allowing the larger ODMDS to receive

material on a continued basis, the need

for the smaller ODMDS no longer exists,

thereby allowing for disposal to occur in

a more environmentally acceptable

location. In addition, disposal within

the larger site will have to proceed in

accordance with the Plan. Strict

adherence to the disposal placement as

specified in the Plan is necessary to

prevent wasted monitoring efforts,

which were designed based on the

disposal of fine-grained materials within

a specific location. Because monitoring

results may cause management

objectives to change, the Plan was

designed so that appropriate changes

could be made with the concurrence of

EPA and the COE. EPA believes these

changes do not warrant the preparation

of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).