27240 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

from the date of filing the SARC.

Supporting documentation shall be

identified as such and maintained by

the reporting casino, and shall be

deemed to have been filed with the

SARC. A reporting casino shall make all

supporting documentation available to

FinCEN and any other appropriate law

enforcement agencies or federal, state,

local, or tribal gaming regulators upon

request.

(d) Confidentiality of reports;

limitation of liability. No casino, and no

director, officer, employee, or agent of

any casino, who reports a suspicious

transaction under this part, may notify

any person involved in the transaction

that the transaction has been reported.

Thus, any person subpoenaed or

otherwise requested to disclose a SARC

or the information contained in a SARC,

except where such disclosure is

requested by FinCEN or another

appropriate law enforcement or

regulatory agency, shall decline to

produce the SARC or to provide any

information that would disclose that a

SARC has been prepared or filed, citing

this paragraph and 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2),

and shall notify FinCEN of any such

request and its response thereto. A

reporting casino, and any director,

officer, employee, or agent of such

reporting casino, that makes a report

pursuant to this section (whether such

report is required by this section or

made voluntarily) shall be protected

from liability for any disclosure

contained in, or for failure to disclose

the fact of, such report, or both, to the

extent provided by 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3).

(e) Compliance. Compliance with this

section shall be audited by the

Department of the Treasury, through

FinCEN, or by delegees of the

Department of the Treasury under the

terms of the Bank Secrecy Act. Failure

to satisfy the requirements of this

section may constitute a violation of the

reporting rules of the Bank Secrecy Act

and of this part.

4. Section 103.54 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii),

b. Removing the word ‘‘hereafter’’ in

paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and

c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B).

The revised paragraphs read as

follows:

§ 103.54 Special rules for casinos.

(a) Compliance programs. * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Annual internal and/or external

independent testing of compliance,

including, without limitation, an annual

statement whether internal controls and

procedures are working effectively to

detect and report suspicious

transactions of $3,000 or more, and

currency transactions of more than

$10,000, to the proper authorities, as

required by this part, and to comply

with the recordkeeping and compliance

program standards of this part;

* * * * *

(v) * * *

(B) The occurrence of any transactions

or patterns of transactions required to be

reported pursuant to § 103.21,

including, without limitation, any

transactions or patterns of transactions

indicated by accounts or records

maintained by a casino to record or

monitor customer activity.

* * * * *

Dated: May 12, 1998.

William F. Baity,

Acting Director, Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network.

[FR Doc. 98–13053 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–03–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–97–134]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Passaic River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

change the operating rules for the I–280

Bridge (Stickel Memorial), mile 5.8, over

the Passaic River at Harrison, New

Jersey, to allow the bridge to remain

closed to navigation. The District

Commander, upon six months notice,

may require that the bridge be restored

to full operational status.

The bridge owner, the New Jersey

Department of Transportation (NJDOT),

has requested that the Coast Guard

consider a change to the operating

regulations for the Route 280 Bridge.

There have been only 8 requests to open

the Route 280 Bridge since 1987;

therefore, the Coast Guard proposed to

change the operating regulations for this

bridge under § 117.39, which allows

closure of a drawbridge due to

infrequent use.

Additionally, as part of this proposal,

the Coast Guard is correcting an error in

this regulation regarding the mile point

of the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge.

The Route 7 Bridge Listed at mile 6.9 in

the existing regulation should be listed

at mile 8.9.

This proposed rule, if adopted, is

expected to relieve NJDOT of the

requirement to crew the Route 280

Bridge and correct an error in this

regulation.

DATES: Comments must be received by

the Coast Guard on or before July 17,

1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,

MA. 02110–3350, or deliver them to the

same address between 7 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is (617) 233–8364. The First Coast

Guard District Bridge Branch maintains

the public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments and documents as indicated

in this preamble will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at the above

address 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

W. McDonald, Project Officer, First

Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

matter by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD01–97–134) and specific section of

this proposal to which their comments

apply, and give reasons for each

comment. 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 a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

response to comments received. The

Cost Guard does not plan to hold a

public hearing; however, persons may

request a public hearing by writing to

the Coast Guard at the address listed

under ADDRESSES. The request should

include the reasons why a hearing

would be beneficial. If it is determined

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 subsequent notice published in the

Federal Register.

Background

The Route 280 Bridge, mile 5.8, at

Harrison, New Jersey, has a vertical

clearance of 35 feet at mean high water

and 40 feet at mean low water.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27241

The Route 280 Bridge is presently

required under § 117.739(h) to open on

signal if at least eight (8) hours advance

notice is given. There have been only 8

requests to open this bridge since 1987.

The bridge owner has requested relief

from being required to crew the bridge

since there have been so few requests to

open the bridge.

Discussion of Proposal

The Coast Guard is considering

amending the regulations to require that

the bridge need not open for navigation,

relieving the bridge owner of the

requirement and expense to crew the

bridge. Section 117.39 contains the

authority for the Coast Guard to issue

such regulations and authorizes the

Coast Guard to place certain restrictions

on the bridge closure. The fact that there

have been only 8 requests to open the

bridge since 1987 indicates that there is

good cause to no longer require the

bridge owner to crew the bridge on a

regular basis. The Coast Guard, as a part

of this proposal, would require that the

bridge be maintained in good operable

condition in the event there is a need to

open the bridge, since the bridge is still

a moveable bridge.

The Coast Guard is also correcting an

error in this regulation by changing the

mile point of the Route 7 Bridge which

is listed at 6.9 and correctly should be

8.9. This correction will require that two

paragraphs be changed in the order they

appear in this regulation as a result of

the corrected ascending order of mile

points in the regulation text. The Route

7 Bridge will be changed from

paragraph (j) to paragraph (k) and the

NJTRO Bridge will be changed from (k)

to (j).

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 not been reviewed 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; Feb. 26, 1979). The Coast

Guard expects the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation, under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary.

This conclusion is based on the fact that

there have been only 8 requests to open

this bridge in the last ten years. The

Coast Guard believes this proposed rule

achieves the requirement of balancing

both the needs of navigation and

vehicular traffic.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

considers whether this proposed rule, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include small businesses, notfor-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations less than 50,000. Therefore,

for the reasons discussed in the

Regulatory Evaluation section above, the

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

that this proposed rule, if adopted, will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. If, however, you think that your

business or organization qualifies as a

small entity and that this proposed rule

will have a significant economic impact

on your business or organization, please

submit a comment (see ADDRESSES)

explaining why you think it qualifies

and in what way and to what degree this

proposed rule will economically affect

it.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule does not provide

for a collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this proposed rule does

not have sufficient implications for

federalism to warrant the preparation of

a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under Figure

2–1, paragraph 32(e), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation

because promulgation of changes to

drawbridge regulations have been found

not to have a significant effect on the

environment. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is not required for this

proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 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. In § 117.739 redesignate paragraphs

(j) and (k) as paragraphs (k) and (j) and

revise paragraph (h) and newly

redesignated (k) to read as follows:

§ 117.739 Passaic River.

* * * * *

(h) The Route 280 Bridge, mile 5.8, at

Harrison, New Jersey, need not open for

the passage of vessels. The operating

machinery of the draw shall be

maintained in serviceable condition and

the draw operated at sufficient intervals

to assure satisfactory operation. The

bridge shall be restored to full

operational status upon six months

notice from the District Commander

should the needs of navigation change

to require the bridge to open for the

passage of vessels.

* * * * *

(k) The draw of the Route 7 (Rutgers

Street) Bridge, mile 8.9, at Belleville,

shall open on signal if at least four

hours notice is given.

* * * * *

Dated: April 18, 1998.

R.M. Larrabee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–13088 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–97–098]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations:

Taunton River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

change the operating rules for the

Brightman Street Bridge, mile 1.8, over

the Taunton River between Somerset

and Fall River, Massachusetts.

The bridge owner, Massachusetts

Highway Department (MHD), has

requested that the Coast Guard consider

a change to the operating regulations for

the Brightman Street Bridge to require

the bridge to open on signal; except,