64192 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(A) A person who:

(1) Is entitled to Medicare Part A by

reason of disability or end stage renal

disease;

(2) In the absence of such entitlement,

would have been eligible for CHAMPUS

under section 1086 of title 10, United

States Code; and

(3) At the time of the receipt of such

benefits, was under age 65.

(B) Any participating provider of care

who received direct payment for care

provided to a person described in

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) of this section

pursuant to an assignment of benefits

from such person.

(iii) The authority to waive collection

of payments under this section shall

apply with regard to health benefits

provided during the period beginning

January 1, 1967, and ending on the later

of: the termination date of any special

enrollment period for Medicare Part B

provided specifically for such persons;

or July 1, 1996.

* * * * *

(10) Effect of compromise, waiver,

suspension or termination of collection

action. Pursuant to the Internal Revenue

Code, 26 U.S.C. 6041, compromises and

terminations of undisputed debts not

discharged in a Title 11 bankruptcy case

and totaling $600 or more for the year

will be reported to the Internal Revenue

Service in the manner prescribed for

inclusion in the debtor’s gross income

for that year. Any action taken under

this paragraph (g) regarding the

compromise of a federal claim, or

waiver or suspension or termination of

collection action on a federal claim is

not an initial determination for

purposes of the appeal procedures of

§ 199.10.

* * * * * * *

Dated: November 26, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–31610 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

36 CFR Part 327

Shoreline Use Permits, Flotation

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Department of Defense.

ACTION: Supplementary proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Corps published a

proposed rule in the April 15, 1997,

issue of the Federal Register,

concerning flotation materials to be

used on all new docks and boat mooring

buoys. Comments received during the

45 day comment period prompted the

Corps to conduct further study and give

additional consideration to flotation

requirements. As a result, the Corps is

withdrawing this amendment and

proposing a new amendment.

An amendment to the Guidelines for

Granting Shoreline Use Permits was also

part of the proposed rule published on

April 15, 1997. This language reduced

onerous requirements on individuals

who have requested waivers due to

obvious limiting health conditions by

giving Operations Project Managers

flexibility to take special circumstances

of the applicant into consideration

when issuing a shoreline management

permit. No negative comments were

received during the comment period

and this amendment will be issued as a

final rule at a later date, probably in

conjunction with the flotation

amendment, once the flotation issue is

resolved.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW–ON,

Washington, D.C. 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Darrell E. Lewis, (202) 761–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps

published a final rule providing policy

and guidance on the management of

shorelines of Corps of Engineers

managed Civil Works projects in the

Federal Register on July 27, 1990, (55

FR 30690–30702), last amended in the

Federal Register on July 1, 1992 (57 FR

29219–29220).

Two amendments to the regulation

were published as a proposed rule in

the Federal Register on April 15, 1997

(62 FR 18307–18308). An amendment to

Paragraph 2.c(9) of Appendix A, Section

327.30, Guidelines for Granting

Shoreline Use Permits, gave operational

project managers flexibility to take

special circumstances of the applicant

into consideration when issuing a

permit. This language reflected the

Corps desire to accommodate basic

access for those individuals who have

requested waivers due to either obvious

limiting health conditions or those

documented by a doctor’s certification.

No negative comments were received

regarding this amendment during the

comment period. Therefore, this portion

of the April 15, 1997 proposed rule will

be promulgated as a final rule at a later

date.

Paragraph 14, Appendix C, of Section

327.30, also published in the April 15,

1997, proposed rule, reflected the Corps

amended flotation requirements for all

new docks and boat mooring facilities.

The Corps received 28 letters

concerning flotation during the

comment period of this proposed

rulemaking. The comments prompted

the Corps to conduct further study and

give additional consideration to

flotation requirements. Accordingly, the

flotation portion of the proposed rule

published on April 15, 1997, is

withdrawn and a new amendment is

proposed.

Procedural Requirements

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Secretary of the Army has

determined that this proposed revision

is not a ‘‘major’’ rule within the

meaning of Executive Order (E.O.)

12866. If approved, this revision will

not (1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more; (2)

cause a major increase in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

geographic regions, or Federal, State, or

local governmental agencies; or (3) have

significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of a United States-based

enterprise to compete with foreignbased enterprise in domestic or export

markets.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Collection of Information

This proposed rule contains no

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Executive Order 12612

The Corps has analyzed this proposed

rule under principles and criteria in

E.O. 12612 and has determined that this

proposed rule does not have sufficient

Federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12630

The Corps has determined that this

proposed rule does not have

‘‘significant’’ taking implications. The

proposed rule does not pertain to taking

of private property interests, nor does it

impact private property.

NEPA Statement

The Corps has determined that this

proposed rule does not constitute a

major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64193

1 In the embargo context, for example, a shipper

might dispute a railroad’s contention that it is

temporarily unable to provide service because of

unsafe operating conditions. The Board, in a recent

decision, declared that, in such situations, it would

secure an inspection from an FRA-certified safety

inspector before directing service over a line

embargoed for safety reasons. Service Obligations

Over Excepted Track, STB Ex Parte No. 564 (STB

served Oct. 22, 1997).

environment and that no detailed

statement is required pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

This proposed rule imposes no

unfunded mandates on any

governmental or private entity and is in

compliance with the provisions of the

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 327

Lakeshore management, Public lands.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, we propose to withdraw the

amendment to 36 CFR Part 327,

Appendix C published at 62 FR 18307

(April 15, 1997) and to amend 36 CFR

Part 327, as follows:

PART 327 —RULES AND

REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC

USE OF WATER RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

ADMINISTERED BY THE CHIEF OF

ENGINEERS

1. The authority citation for 36 CFR

Part 327 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460d and 460l–6a.

2. Appendix C to § 327.30 is amended

by revising paragraph 14 to read as

follows:

Appendix C to § 327.30—Shoreline Use

Permit Conditions

* * * * *

14. Flotation for all docks and boat

mooring buoys shall be of materials

manufactured for marine use. Flotation will

be 100% warranted for a minimum of 8 years

to not sink, become waterlogged, crack, peel,

fragment or be subject to loss of beads.

Flotation materials will resist puncture and

penetration and will not be subject to damage

by animals. Flotation will be fire resistant.

Any flotation which is within 40 feet of a line

carrying fuel shall be 100% impervious to

water and fuel. Reuse of plastic, metal or

other previously used drums or containers

for encasement or flotation purpose is

prohibited. Existing flotation is authorized

until it has severely deteriorated and is no

longer serviceable, at which time it shall be

replaced with approved flotation. For any

floats installed after the effective date of this

specification, repair or replacement is

required when it no longer performs its

designated function or fails to meet the

specifications for which it was originally

warranted.

* * * * *

Dated: November 21, 1997.

For the Commander.

Robert W. Burkhardt,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Executive

Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 97–31776 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board.

49 CFR Chapter X

[STB Ex Parte No. 574]

Safe Implementation of BoardApproved Transactions

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Board seeks comments

from all interested persons on the extent

to which railroads should be required to

provide detailed information setting

forth the manner in which they intend

to safely implement authority granted

by the Board in proceedings subject to

the Board’s jurisdiction.

DATES: Notices of intent to participate

are due by December 24, 1997. Shortly

thereafter, a list of participants will be

issued. Comments are due by January

19, 1998. Replies are due by February

12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of notices of intent to participate

and pleadings referring to STB Ex Parte

No. 574: Surface Transportation Board,

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20423.

Once the list of participants has been

issued by the Board, send one copy of

each comment and each reply to each

party on the list of participants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600 [TDD

for the hearing impaired: (202) 565–

1695].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rail

transportation policy (RTP) (49 U.S.C.

10101), which was adopted in the

Staggers Rail Act of 1980 and amended

in the ICC Termination Act of 1995,

establishes the basic policy directives

against which all of the statutory

provisions we administer must be

weighed. The RTP provides, in relevant

part, that, ‘‘[i]n regulating the railroad

industry, it is the policy of the United

States Government * * * to promote a

safe and efficient rail transportation

system’’ * * * [by allowing rail carriers

to] operate transportation facilities

without detriment to the public health

and safety * * *.’’ The rail

transportation policy applies to all

transactions subject to Board

jurisdiction.

Over the years, the Board and its

predecessor, the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC), have considered the

issue of safety along with other relevant

issues in individual cases. For example,

the ICC and the Board, in consultation

with the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), which has

primary responsibility over railroad

safety enforcement, have routinely

considered safety in their environmental

review of all rail mergers, acquisitions,

line constructions, and similar

transactions. In 1993, the ICC denied an

application because the agency believed

that no conditions could sufficiently

mitigate the unsafe conditions arising

out of the proposed construction of the

rail line in Construction and

Operation—Indiana and Ohio Ry. Co., 9

I.C.C.2d 783 (1993). In a similar vein,

we routinely address safety issues, with

the advice of the FRA, in the context of

rail embargoes.1

Recently, in a pending railroad merger

proceeding, we undertook to address

safety issues in a more systematic way.

Specifically, in response to a request in

the ongoing Conrail Acquisition

proceeding by the FRA, we required the

applicant railroads in that case to

prepare detailed plans addressing how

they propose to integrate their

operations to ensure continued safety if

the merger is approved by the Board.

CSX Corporation and CSX

Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern

Corporation and Norfolk Southern

Railway Company—Control and

Operating Leases/Agreements—Conrail,

Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation,

STB Finance Docket No. 33388,

Decision No. 52 (STB served Nov. 3,

1997) (Conrail Acquisition). In our

decision, we explained that the

railroads’ submissions would be made

part of the environmental record in that

proceeding and dealt with in the

ongoing environmental review process

in that case. We stated that the railroads’

submissions, which are due to be filed

December 3rd, will be incorporated in a

separate section of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

that is to be issued by the end of the

year. We requested the FRA to provide

us with its analysis of the plans, and

invited comments from all other

interested persons, during the 45-day

comment period that will be provided

on the DEIS. After review of these

analyses and comments, the Board’s

environmental staff will address safety

implementation issues in the Final