53770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

deposits. The proposed rule would

allow for the payment of interest or

other remuneration on any deposit

which, if held by a member bank, would

be allowable under 12 U.S.C. 371a and

461, or by regulation of the FRB. The

effect of this proposal is that state

nonmember banks and insured branches

of foreign banks would become subject

to the same exceptions to the

prohibition that member banks are

subject to, regardless of whether the

FDIC had issued or authorized the

specific exception.

The FDIC is also proposing this rule

in response to section 303 of the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(CDRIA), Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat.

2160 (Sept. 23, 1994). This statute

requires that each federal banking

agency, consistent with the principles of

safety and soundness, statutory law and

policy, and the public interest, conduct

a review of the regulations and written

policies of that agency to, among other

things, make uniform all regulations and

guidelines implementing common

statutory or supervisory policies. The

FDIC believes that the proposal is in

accordance with section 303 of the

CDRIA in that it seeks to make uniform

a regulation implementing a common

statutory policy.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Board hereby certifies that the

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The effect of this proposal is that state

nonmember banks and insured branches

of foreign banks would become subject

to the same exceptions to the

prohibition that member banks are

subject to, regardless of whether the

FDIC had issued or authorized the

specific exception.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule would not

constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’

within the meaning of section 3502(3) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Consequently,

no material has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 329

Banks, banking, Interest rates.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board of Directors of the

FDIC proposes to amend 12 CFR part

329 as set forth below:

PART 329—INTEREST ON DEPOSITS

1. The authority citation for part 329

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819, 1828(g) and

1832(a).

2. Section 329.3 is added to read as

follows:

§ 329.3 Exception to prohibition on

payment of interest.

Section 329.2 shall not apply to the

payment of interest or other

remuneration on any deposit which, if

held by a member bank, would be

allowable under 12 U.S.C.371a and 461,

or by regulation of the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC this 6th day of

October, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27300 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–97–072]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterways, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

to change the regulations governing the

operation of the Onslow Beach Bridge

across the Atlantic Intracoastal

Waterway (AICW), mile 240.7, at Camp

Lejeune, North Carolina, at the request

of the United States Marine Corps

(USMC).

The proposal would continue to

provide for openings on signal, except

that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw

would only open on the hour and half

hour, year-round. This change in the

bridge opening schedule is intended to

reduce vehicular traffic delays while

still providing for the reasonable needs

of navigation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (Aowb), USCG Atlantic

Area, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia

23704–5004, or may be hand-delivered

to the same address between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. The telephone

number is (757) 398–6222. Comments

will become part of this docket and will

be available for inspection and copying

at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann Deaton, Bridge Administrator,

USCG Atlantic Area, (757) 398–6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written views,

comments, data, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses and should

identify this rulemaking (CGD05–97–

072). Commenters should identify the

specific section of this proposed rule to

which each comment applies, and give

reasons for each comment. The Coast

Guard requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an

unbound format suitable for copying

and electronic filing. If that is not

practical, a second copy of any bound

material is requested. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

received during the comment period. It

may change this proposed rule in view

of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the address listed

under ADDRESSES. The request should

include reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

The Onslow Beach Bridge and

adjoining property are part of the

Marine Corps Base at Camp Lejeune

military reservation, located adjacent to

Jacksonville, North Carolina. The

current regulations require the Onslow

Beach Bridge to open on signal at all

times. This requirement is included in

the general operating regulations in 33

CFR 117.5.

The USMC has requested changes in

the regulation to require the bridge to

open on signal, except from 7 a.m. to 7

p.m., when the bridge would open on

the hour and half hour year-round.

Bridge logs from October 1993 through

July 1997 revealed on average of 38

bridge opening requests per day. During
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 53771

peak opening periods in the Fall and

Spring, bridge tenders received an

average of 45 bridge opening request per

day. Considering the minimal number of

openings identified by the bridge logs,

the Coast Guard believes that the

proposed changes will more fairly

balance the competing needs of

vehicular and vessel traffic.

Other drawbridges along the AICW in

North Carolina are governed by specific

regulations listed in 33 CFR 117.821

which require them to open on the hour

or on the hour and half hour. The

USMC’s requested change to the

regulations for the Onslow Beach Bridge

would make its schedule consistently

with those of the other AICW

drawbridges.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

The Coast Guard proposes to amend

the regulations governing the Onslow

Beach Bridge across the AICW, mile

240.7, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,

to allow openings on the hour and half

hour, between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., yearround. The Coast Guard proposes to

insert this new regulation at 33 CFR

117.821(a)(3).

The Coast Guard intends to remove

the current text at 33 CFR 117.821(a)

which states that drawbridges shall

open on signal for public vessels of the

United States, state and local

government vessels, and any vessel in

an emergency involving danger to life or

property. This general requirement is

currently published in 33 CFR 117.31

and is no longer required to be

published in each specific bridge

regulation. Commercial vessels would

continue to pass on signal as provided

in new paragraph (a). To ensure clarity

and consistency of the operating

regulation, the regulatory requirements

for the current 33 CFR 117.821(b) would

be reworded and redesignated

paragraph (a). Although no substantive

changes are proposed to current

117.821(b)(1)–(6), additional text

changes would be made to clarify the

existing regulations.

Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to

revise 33 CFR 117.821 by redesignating

the following paragraphs: Paragraph

(b)(1) governing the S.R. 94 Bridge, at

AICW mile 113.7, would be

redesignated (a)(1); Paragraph (b)(2)

governing the S.R. 304 Bridge, at AICW

mile 157.2, would be redesignated

(a)(2); Paragraph (b)(3) governing the

S.R. 50 Bridge, at AICW mile 260.7,

would be redesignated (a)(4); Paragraph

(b)(4) governing the Figure Eight Swing

Bridge, at AICW mile 278.1, would be

redesignated (a)(5); Paragraph (b)(5)

governing the S.R. 74 Bridge, at AICW

mile 283.1, would be redesignated

(a)(6); Paragraph (b)(6) governing the

S.R. 1172 Bridge, at AICW mile 337.9,

would be redesignated (a)(7); and

paragraph (c) would be redesignated (b).

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. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget 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). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The

Coast Guard reached this conclusion

based on the fact that the changes and

actions proposed by this rule would not

prevent mariners from transiting the

bridge. The proposed rule would merely

require pleasure vessels to plan to be in

position to take advantage of scheduled

bridge openings between 7 a.m. to 7

p.m. At all other times, the bridge

would continue to open on signal.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities ‘‘Small

entities’’ include small independently

owned and operated businesses which

are not dominant in their fields and that

otherwise qualify as ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed

rule, if adopted, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal does not provide for the

collection of information requirements

under the Paper Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 301 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

proposed rule will not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that under section

2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59

FR 38654, 29 July 1994), this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement has been prepared and placed

in the rulemaking docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend part 117

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations

as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.821 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.821 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,

Albermarle Sound to Sunset Beach, North

Carolina.

(a) The drawbridges across the

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in North

Carolina shall open on signal for

commercial vessels at all times and on

signal for pleasure vessels, except at the

times and during the periods specified

below.

(1) S.H. 94 Bridge, mile 113.7, at

Fairfield, NC, from April 1 to November

30, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the draw

need only open on the hour.

(2) S.R. 304 Bridge, mile 157.2, at

Hobucken, NC, from April 1 to

November 30, between 7 a.m. and 7

p.m., the draw need only open on the

hour and half hour.

(3) Onslow Beach Bridge, mile 240.7,

at Camp Lejeune, NC between 7 a.m.

and 7 p.m., the draw need only open on

the hour and half hour.

(4) S.R. 50 Bridge, mile 260.7, at Surf

City, NC, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. the

draw need only open on the hour.

(5) Figure Eight Swing Bridge, mile

278.1, at Scotts Hill, NC, the draw need

only open on the hour and half hour.

(6) S.R. 74 Bridge, mile 283.1, at

Wrightsville Beach, NC ,between 7 a.m.

and 7 p.m. the draw need only open on

the hour.

(7) S.R. 1172 Bridge, mile 337.9, at

Sunset Beach, NC, shall open on the
53772 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to

Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911

Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94–102,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 59 FR 54878

(November 2, 1994); Revision of the Commission’s

Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911

Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94–102,

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 40348, 40374 (August 2, 1996)

(E911 Report and Order), recon. pending.

2See also PCIA, Request for Extension of Time to

Implement E911/TTY Compatibility Requirement

for Wireless Operators (Aug. 27, 1997); CTIA Ex

Parte Filing (Sept. 23, 1997).

3Following the Joint Letter, CTIA filed another ex

parte letter dated September 26, 1997, concerning

carrier liability with respect to E911 calls. We have

also received certain ex parte filings prior to the

Joint Letter which relate to the issues raised in that

letter. For example, with respect to the proposed

18-month extension of the TTY compliance date,

the National Association of the Deaf and the

Consumer Action Network oppose it as too long and

propose additional obligations. Opposition to

Request for Extension of Eighteen Months to

Implement E911/TTY Compatibility Requirement

for Wireless Operators (Sept. 11, 1997). Nextel

Communications, on the other hand, supports the

requested extension. Motion in Support of Request

for Extension of time to Implement E911/TTY

Compatibility Requirement for Wireless Operators

(Sept. 9, 1997).

hour on signal between 7 a.m. and 7

p.m., April 1 to November 30, except

that on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal

holidays, form June 1 through

September 30, the bridge shall open on

signal on the hour between 7 a.m. and

7 p.m.

(b) If a pleasure vessel is approaching

a drawbridge which is only required to

open on the hour or on the hour and

half hour, and cannot reach the

drawbridge on the hour or on the half

hour, the drawtender may delay the

required opening up to 10 minutes past

the hour or half hour.

Dated: October 1, 1997.

Roger Rufe Jr.,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 97–27359 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94–102; DA 97–2151]

Compatibility of Wireless Services

With Enhanced 911

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; further request

for comment.

SUMMARY: In the wireless Enhanced 911

(E911) rulemaking proceeding, the

Commission seeks additional comment

on a September 25, 1997, ex parte letter

(Joint Letter) filed by two wireless

industry groups and three public safety

community groups. In the Joint Letter,

the Cellular Telecommunications

Industry Association (CTIA), the

Personal Communications Industry

Association (PCIA), the Association of

Public-Safety Communications

Officials-International, Inc. (APCO), the

National Emergency Number

Association (NENA), and the National

Association of State Nine-One-One

Administrators (NASNA) propose

modifications to terms used in this

proceeding and rules for processing 911

calls and permitting Public Safety

Answering Points (PSAPs) to choose

which 911 calls they will receive. The

letter also supports an extension of the

compliance date for implementation of

911 service over digital wireless services

for TTY users. Additional comment on

these responses is sought to assist the

Commission in determining whether to

revise the Commission’s Rules. The

effect of revising the Commission’s

Rules would be to clarify the

implementation of basic 911 services to

wireless customers, including people

with hearing or speech disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be filed by

October 17,1997, and reply comments

must be filed by October 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Won

Kim, Policy Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–

1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional Comment Sought in

Wireless Enhanced 911

Reconsideration Proceeding Regarding

Rules and Schedules

1. In the wireless Enhanced 911

(E911) rulemaking proceeding, the

Commission seeks additional comment

on a September 25, 1997, ex parte letter

(Joint Letter) filed by two wireless

industry groups and three public safety

community groups. In the Joint Letter,

the Cellular Telecommunications

Industry Association (CTIA), the

Personal Communications Industry

Association (PCIA), the Association of

Public-Safety Communications

Officials-International, Inc. (APCO), the

National Emergency Number

Association (NENA), and the National

Association of State Nine-One-One

Administrators (NASNA) propose

modifications to the 911 rules and

support an extension of the compliance

date for implementation of TTY

compatibility requirements. The full

text of the Joint Letter is available for

inspection and duplication during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC

20554. Copies may also be obtained

from International Transcription

Service, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–

3800.

2. Pursuant to § 1.415(d) of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415(d),

additional comment is hereby sought in

the wireless E911 reconsideration

proceeding 1 concerning issues raised in

an ex parte presentation filed by several

parties in the proceeding. In the E911

Report and Order, the Commission

established rules requiring wireless

carriers to implement basic 911 and

E911 services.

3. In a September 25, 1997, ex parte

letter (Joint Letter), two wireless

industry groups (the Cellular

Telecommunications Industry

Association (CTIA) and the Personal

Communications Industry Association

(PCIA)) and three public safety

community groups (the Association of

Public-Safety Communications

Officials-International, Inc., the National

Emergency Number Association, and

the National Association of State NineOne-One Administrators) propose

modifications to terms used in the E911

Report and Order and rules for

processing 911 calls and permitting

Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)

to choose which 911 calls they will

receive. The letter also supports an

extension of the compliance date for

implementation of 911 service over

digital wireless services for TTY/TDD

users from October 1, 1997, to April 1,

1999,2 and requests that the

Commission refrain from addressing

certain additional issues until the

industry has had the opportunity to

fully consider such issues in meetings

with the relevant parties.

4. We have also received other ex

parte comments addressing issues

raised in the Joint Letter. In a September

29, 1997, letter, Congresswoman Anna

Eshoo provided the Commission with

her initial assessment of the

recommendations made in the Joint

Letter and reiterated her view that ‘‘it is

in the public’s best interest that all

wireless 911 calls should be passed

through to the public safety authority.’’

On September 30, 1997, the Ad Hoc

Alliance for Public Access to 911 also

filed an ex parte letter opposing the

Joint Letter.3

5. The Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau took note of the pending

petitions for reconsideration and ex

parte filings and on September 30, 1997,