Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21717

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a state, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would 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.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed 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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule under Executive Order

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under figure 2–

1, paragraph 32(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A written categorical exclusion

determination is available in the docket

for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191,

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add § 165.908 to read as follows:

§ 165.908 Safety Zones: Annual fireworks

events in the Captain of the Port Chicago

Zone.

(a) The following area is designated a

safety zone:

(1) Location. The waters off the end of

Navy Pier, Lake Michigan, where the

fireworks barge will be, bounded by the

arc of a circle with a 350-foot radius

with its center in the middle of the

barge, an approximate position of 41°

53′ 18′′ N, 087° 36′ 08′′ W (NAD 1983).

(2) Effective dates. This regulation

becomes effective from 8 p.m. (c.d.t.) to

11 p.m. (c.d.t.) on the Sunday before

Memorial and Labor Day; every

Wednesday and Saturday from

Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day

Weekend; and the Fourth of July. If the

Fourth of July fireworks are canceled

due to inclement weather, the paragraph

(a)(1) is effective on July 5th.

(b) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

Coast Guard patrol personnel include

commissioned, warrant, and petty

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator shall proceed

as directed.

(3) The safety zone encompasses a

portion of Lake Michigan that is near

the entrance to the Chicago River. In

cases where shipping is affected,

commercial vessels may request

permission from the Captain of the Port

Chicago to transit the safety zone.

Approval will be made on a case-bycase basis. Requests must be made in

advance and approved by the Captain of

the Port before transits will be

authorized. The Captain of the Port may

be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard

Group Milwaukee on Channel 16, VHF–

FM.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

R.E. Seebald,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Chicago.

[FR Doc. 01–10716 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

require that children 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

proposed rule should reduce the

number of children who drown because

they were not wearing lifejackets.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before August 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Identify your comments and

related material by the docket number

for this rulemaking [USCG–2000–8589].

To make sure they do not enter the

docket 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

as being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the

Nassif Building, at the address listed

above 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.

You may obtain a copy of this proposed

rule by calling the U.S. Coast Guard

Infoline at 1–800–368–5647, or read it

21718 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

on the Internet, at the Web Site for the

Office of Boating Safety, at http://

www.uscgboating.org or at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this proposed rule, contact

Carlton Perry, Project Manager, Office of

Boating Safety, U.S. Coast Guard, by

telephone at 202–267–0979 or by e-mail

at cperry@comdt.uscg.mil. For questions

on viewing or submitting material to the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 handdelivery, submit them in an unbound

format, no larger than 81⁄2 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 proposed 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

On September 25, 1997, we published

in the Federal Register a notice of

request for comments titled,

‘‘Recreational Boating Safety—Federal

Requirements for Wearing Personal

Flotation Devices’’ [62 FR 50280]. In

that notice, under docket number CGD

97–059, we asked interested people,

groups, and businesses about the need

for, and alternatives to, Federal

requirements or incentives for boaters to

wear lifejackets. On March 20, 1998, we

published a second notice with the

same title and under the same docket

number to extend the comment period

to May 29, 1998 [63 FR 13586].

We received over 600 written

comments in response to the initial

notice. Most opposed any Federal

requirements that all boaters wear

lifejackets all the time. Yet almost 120

supported Federal or State requirements

to wear lifejackets for at least some

recreational vessels, boaters, or

activities.

After summarizing the comments

(copy of the initial notices, public

comments, and summary of comments

in public docket USCG–1999–6219), we

consulted with NBSAC at its meetings

in October 1998 and April 1999

regarding the results. NBSAC

recommended that we publish another

notice of request for comments, one that

would focus more on the need to

propose rules calling for mandatory

wear by children, by operators of

Personal Watercraft (PWC), and by

people being towed behind recreational

vessels.

In deference to NBSAC, we published

in the Federal Register another notice of

request for comments titled,

‘‘Recreational Boating Safety—Federal

Requirements for Wearing Personal

Flotation Devices’’ [64 FR 53971

(October 5, 1999)]. In that notice, under

docket number USCG–1999–6219, we

addressed only vessels less than 16 feet

in length, which should include specific

groups of high-risk recreational vessels,

boaters, and activities.

We received almost 600 written

comments in response to the second,

more focused notice. The comments

were mixed: Most opposed broad

Federal requirements for wearing

lifejackets, a few supported various

Federal requirements for selected

circumstances, more supported

continued States’ requirements for use

of safety equipment, and a few objected

to the inconsistency between or among

the several States’ requirements.

After summarizing the comments

(copy of the initial notices, public

comments, and summary of comments

in public docket USCG–1999–6219), we

again consulted with NBSAC at its

meeting in May 2000 regarding the

results. NBSAC then recommended that

we either expand section 175.15 of title

33 of the Code of Federal Regulations or

add a new section to part 175 to require

children to wear lifejackets. This section

would require children under 13 to

wear lifejackets approved by the Coast

Guard while aboard recreational vessels

under way, except when the children

are below decks or in enclosed cabins.

The number of deaths by drowning of

children under 13 has decreased from

27 in 1995 to 11 in 1998. 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 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 under different activities. By late

1999, 36 States had enacted statutes

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.

To improve boating safety and

encourage greater uniformity of boating

laws, we are proposing a requirement

that children under 13 wear lifejackets

approved by the Coast Guard while

aboard vessels under way, except when

the children are below decks or in

enclosed cabins. We are nevertheless

proposing to adopt the ages at or below

which the States require children to

wear lifejackets within those States. The

existence of a Federal requirement for

children to wear lifejackets under

specific circumstances, even one that

adopted States’ thresholds of age, would

encourage States to establish their own

requirements for children and would

draw the several requirements into

greater uniformity nationwide.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

1. Section 175.3 would add 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 would accomplish a

minor editorial change and add a new

paragraph establishing a requirement for

children under 13 to wear lifejackets

approved by the Coast Guard while

aboard recreational vessels.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21719

3. Subpart B would add a new section

175.25 adopting the ages at or below

which the States require children to

wear lifejackets while aboard

recreational vessels within those States.

The proposed rule would apply only

where a State had not enacted such a

requirement. It would apply now,

therefore, only in Colorado, Guam,

Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,

Maryland, Minnesota, the Northern

Mariana Islands, Nevada, New Mexico,

North Carolina, North Dakota, South

Dakota, the Virgin Islands, West

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 would apply on the

high seas.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

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 this rule under that Order.

It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

[44 FR 11040 (February 26, 1979)].

A draft Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT follows:

1. Cost of Proposed Rule

This rule would impose no costs on

the boating public. Existing rules

require that the carriage of an

appropriate PFD for each passenger.

Costs to the Government would be nonexistent as well because the Coast Guard

already trains its Boarding Officers to

check safety equipment when boarding

recreational vessels.

2. Benefit of Proposed Rule

This rule would be 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 1996, 14 in 1997 and 11 in

1998), these few drownings were

avoidable. The rule should reduce the

number of children under 13 that drown

every year because they are not wearing

lifejackets.

This rule would now affect only those

States, identified above, that have not

enacted requirements for children to

wear lifejackets. In those States, there

were 7 fatal drownings and 1 moderate

and 3 critical near-drowning injuries of

children under 13 from 1995 through

1998 that could 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. Yet they may

just as well 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 April

29, 1996, sets the value of a fatality

averted for use in preparing economic

evaluations at $2.7 million and affirms

previous guidance to agencies within

the Department to classify injuries as

minor, moderate, serious, severe,

critical, or fatal. The guidance also

assigns to each degree of injury averted

a certain fraction of the value of a

fatality averted. Therefore, to calculate

the value of each degree of injury

averted, we multiplied $2.7 million, the

value of a fatality averted, by the

fraction 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:

VALUE OF INJURIES AND FATALITIES FOR STATES WITHOUT EXISTING REGULATIONS

Injury severity

Fraction of

value of

fatality

averted

Value of injuries and fatalities if averted

Number of

injuries

(1995–1998)

Dollar amount

Minor .............................. 0.0020 ($2,700,000)(0.0020) =$5,400 0 ($5,400)(0)=0

Moderate ....................... 0.0155 ($2,700,000)(0.0155) =$41,850 1 ($41,850)(1) =$41,850

Serious .......................... 0.0575 ($2,700,000)(0.0575) =$155,250 0 ($155,250)(0) =0

Severe ........................... (0.1875) ($2,700,000)(0.1875) =$506,250 0 ($506,250)(0) =0

Critical ............................ (0.7625) ($2,700,000)(0.7625)= $2,058,750 3 ($2,058,750)(3) =$6,176,250

Fatal ............................... 1.0000 ($2,700,000)(1.000) =$2,700,000 7 ($2,700,000)(7) =18,900,000

Total .................... ........................ 11 $25,118,100

The total value of injuries and

fatalities averted for 1995–1998 would

have been $25,118,100. Therefore, the

average annual value of injuries and

fatalities averted would have been

$6,279,525 ($25,118,100)/(4 years).

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

[5 U.S.C. 601–612], we have considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic effect 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 would

apply to operators of recreational

vessels on waters subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States, as

defined in 33 CFR 2.05–30. It would

continue to apply to operators of

recreational vessels owned in the

United States, while operating on the

high seas (as defined in 33 CFR 2.05–1).

Further, since this proposed rule would

adopt the ages at or below which States

require children to wear lifejackets,

operators of recreational vessels in

States with such requirements would

not be subject to different requirements

within their States, unless the States

changed their own: One State, one

requirement. Only those operators of

recreational vessels either in States

without such requirements or on

navigable waters of the United States

outside States altogether would be

subject to the Federal requirement.

Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act

does not apply to individuals, the Coast

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this rule would not have a

21720 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. If

you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic effect on it, please

submit a comment to the Docket

Management Facility at the address

under ADDRESSES. In your comment,

explain why you think it qualifies and

how and to what degree this rule would

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 want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effect on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

If the rule would affect 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.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44

U.S.C. 3501–3520].

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that, because the Federal requirement

for children under 13 to wear lifejackets

would not supersede or preempt any

State’s requirement for children to wear

lifejackets, this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

Order. The proposed Federal

requirement would apply only in States

without such requirements.

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, a 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 proposed rule would

not impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Reform of Civil Justice

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule. Nor

would it create an environmental risk to

health or risk to safety that might

disproportionately affect children; on

the contrary, it would advance the

welfare of children.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under figure 2–

1, paragraph (34)(a), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. The rule

would require 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 proposes to

amend 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 § 175.3 by adding the

following definition in alphabetical

order, to read as follows:

§ 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 § 175.15 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:

§ 175.15 Personal flotation devices

required.

* * * * *

(c) No person may use a recreational

vessel unless all children aboard under

13 years old are wearing appropriate

PFDs; or—

(1) The children are below decks or in

an enclosed cabin; or

(2) The vessel is not under way.

4. Add a new § 175.25 to subpart B,

to read as follows:

§ 175.25 Adoption of States’ requirements

for children to wear personal flotation

devices.

(a) This section applies to every

operator of a recreational vessel on

waters within the geographical

boundaries of any State that has

established by statute a requirement

under which children must wear PFDs

approved by the Coast Guard while

aboard recreational vessels.

(b) If the applicable State’s statute

establishes an age under which children

must wear PFDs, that age, instead of the

age provided in § 175.15(c)(2)(i) of this

part, applies within the geographical

boundaries of that State.

Dated: January 15, 2001.

Terry M. Cross,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–10840 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Postage Meters and Meter Stamps

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes

to change Domestic Mail Manual P030

to extend the use of postage meters to

include postage-evidencing systems that

print information-based indicia.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or delivered to the Manager,

Postage Technology Management, 1735

N. Lynn Street, Room 5011, Arlington,

VA 22209–6050. Copies of all written

comments will be available at this

address for inspection and

photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Luff, 703–292–3693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mailers

may now use information-based indicia

(IBI) to show evidence of postage, as

they would letterpress and digital meter

stamps. IBI include human-readable

information and a USPS-approved twoVerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:32 Apr 30, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 01MYP1