7928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CDR David Dickman, Maritime and

International Law Division (G–LMI),

(202) 267–0095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to submit written

data, views, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses, identify this

request (CFD 94–100), and give the

reason 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 stamped, selfaddressed postcards or envelopes.

Discussion of Issues

The following statutes authorize the

Coast Guard to request that the Customs

Service refuse or revoke the clearance

required by 46 App. U.S.C. 91 of a

vessel the owner or operator of which

may be subject to a civil penalty for

violation of these statutes:

(a) Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(b) (12)).

(b) Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1908(e)).

(c) Ports and Waterways Safety Act

(PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1232(f).

(d) Tank vessel operating or

inspection requirements (46 U.S.C.

3718(e)).

(e) Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C.

2072(d)).

In addition to the provisions that

apply to potential liability for civil

penalties, the Coast Guard has authority

to request that the Customs Service

withhold clearance to a vessel when the

owner, operator, or person in charge

may be liable for criminal fines for

violations of APPS, which implements

the provisions of MARPOL.

Clearance from the Customs Service is

required before a U.S. or foreign flag

vessel may proceed from a port or place

in the United States to a foreign port or

place, to another port or place in the

United States, or to a hovering vessel

outside the territorial sea or to receive

or deliver merchandise outside the

territorial sea. Clearance is not required

for a U.S. vessel proceeding from a port

or place in the United States to another

port or place in the United States if the

vessel does not have on board bonded

merchandise or foreign merchandise for

which entry has not been made (46 App.

U.S.C. 91(a)(2)).

All of these statutes provide that the

necessary clearance can be granted upon

the posting of a bond or other surety

satisfactory to the Coast Guard.

Historically, the Coast Guard has

accepted, as satisfactory, surety bonds,

letters of undertaking, and cash placed

in escrow in an amount equal to the

maximum penalty or fine that could be

assessed if a violation of the statute is

found. However, the form and terms of

the bonds and letters of undertaking

have varied among Coast Guard marine

safety offices and districts. This has

resulted occasionally in some confusion

among the marine industry, shipping

agents, Protection and Indemnity clubs,

and other entities that normally post the

required sureties.

Based on these problems, the Coast

Guard seeks comments, particularly on

the following issues:

(a) Is it desirable to provide for

nationwide uniformity in the format and

content of bonds or other forms of

surety accepted by the Coast Guard?

(b) Is there a need for regulations on

this subject and, if so, what should be

covered? If regulations are not needed,

what alternative methods might be

employed to remove the confusion

noted above?

(c) What procedures should be

incorporated in regulations or other

methods for providing bonds or other

forms of surety?

(d) What types of bonds or other

forms of surety should be accepted and

why?

(e) Should the Coast Guard develop

standard forms for the sureties to be

accepted or should only the basic

necessary terms be identified, as in the

regulations for Customs bonds under 19

CFR part 113?

(f) Should an option be provided to

allow consideration to be given, on an

ad hoc basis, to satisfactory sureties on

terms not specified in the regulations?

Alternatively, should the specified

sureties or terms be exclusive?

(g) Should a letter of undertaking, as

issued traditionally by P&I Clubs,

continue to be accepted as a form of

surety? If so, is the form used in general

admiralty practice sufficient or are

additional terms necessary to protect the

interests of the government and vessel

owners or operators? If letters of

undertaking are acceptable, which

individuals or entities should be liable

in the event of a default in payment of

the assessed penalty or fine?

(h) Are different terms required for

acceptable forms of surety depending

upon whether or not the statute

establishes ‘‘in rem’’ liability of the

vessel for civil penalties?

(i) If the owner or operator of the

vessel may be subject to a criminal fine,

would a letter of undertaking be an

appropriate form of surety in light of the

fact that, in general admiralty practice,

letters of undertaking are used solely for

civil liability purposes?

(j) If a letter of undertaking or other

surety is determined by the Coast Guard

to be acceptable for the purposes

described, should the Coast Guard

provide a list of acceptable corporate

providers, similar to the listing for

surety bonds published by the

Department of the Treasury in Treasury

Department Circular 570? Alternatively,

should minimal qualifications for

corporate providers of letters of

undertaking or other satisfactory

sureties be published without

specifically listing acceptable providers?

(k) Should individuals or partnerships

be authorized to provide bonds or other

forms of surety? If so, what minimum

qualifications should these providers be

required to meet?

The Coast Guard may initiate

rulemaking based upon the comments

received.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

J.E. Shkor,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95–3428 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD11–95–002]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Little Potato Slough, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the

California Department of

Transportation, the Coast Guard is

considering amending the regulation for

the Highway 12 Swing Bridge crossing

over Little Potato Slough, mile 0.1 at

Terminous, near Stockton, California.

The existing regulation provides that the

draw open upon demand from May 1

through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10

p.m., and upon four hours advance

notice at all other times. The proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7929

regulation provides that the draw open

on four hours advance notice at all

times. This amendment will allow the

bridge owner to reduce operating

expenses, and should still provide for

the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (oan-br), Eleventh Coast

Guard District, Building 10, Room 214,

Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

94501–5100, or may be delivered to

Room 214 at the same address between

7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christian G. Cerles, Bridge Section,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Alameda;

telephone (510) 437–3514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD11–95–002) and the specific

section of this proposal to which each

comment applies, and give the reason

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 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 proposal in view of the

comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to Commander (oanbr), Eleventh Coast Guard District, at the

address 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.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this regulation are Christian G.

Cerles, Project Manager, Bridge Section,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, and

Lieutenant Robin Barber, Project

Attorney, Eleventh Coast Guard District

Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

The Little Potato Slough Bridge was

built in 1991 to replace the swing bridge

built at that location in 1936.

The old swing bridge had a vertical

clearance of nine feet above Mean High

Water (MHW) in a closed position. The

present bridge has a vertical clearance of

35 feet above MHW when in the closed

position.

Because of this greater vertical

clearance, the number of bridge

openings has dropped significantly with

the present bridge, allowing most

vessels to pass under the new bridge

while the bridge was in a closed

position. In 1982, the bridge opened

2300 times, with an annual growth rate

of four percent prior to the

reconstruction (an estimated 3145

openings in 1990). In 1993, the first full

year of operation after reconstruction,

the bridge opened 239 times. All but

three of the openings were for

recreational vessels. By further

comparison, the nearby Mokelumne

River Bridge, which crosses another

recreational waterway and has a vertical

clearance of seven feet, opened 3518

times in 1993.

Discussion of Proposed Regulation

The current regulation requires that

the draw open on signal from 6 a.m. to

10 p.m. May 1 through October 31. The

remainder of the time, the draw shall

open upon signal provided that at least

four hours notice to the drawtender at

the Rio Vista bridge has been given. The

proposed regulation would require a

four-hour advance notice at all times.

Because the vessel traffic requirements

of the waterway are limited, requiring

advance notice to request draw

openings appears reasonable. This

proposed amendment would allow the

bridge owner to reduce operating

expenses while still ensuring that all

draw opening requests are

accommodated and still provide for the

reasonable needs of navigation.

Notice to open the draw would

continue be given to the drawtender at

the Rio Vista bridge. The Rio Vista

bridge has a drawtender on duty at all

times.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal 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

regulation to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10(e) of the Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must consider whether this proposal

would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field 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 proposal, if adopted,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this proposal does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.

of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

the proposal is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 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 is also issued

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

Stat. 5039.
7930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2. Section 117.167 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.167 Little Potato Slough.

The draw of the California

Department of Transportation highway

bridge, mile 0.1 at Terminous, shall

open on signal if at least four hours

notice is given to the drawtender at the

Rio Vista bridge across the Sacramento

River, mile 12.8.

Dated: January 20, 1995.

D.D. Polk,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 95–3430 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–94–116]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Wicomico River, Salisbury, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the State

Highway Administration, Maryland

Department of Transportation, the Coast

Guard is proposing to change the

regulations that govern the operation of

the Main Street and the US 50

drawbridges across the North Prong of

the Wicomico River, mile 22.4, in

Salisbury, Maryland. This proposal

would extend the current rush hour

restrictions by one hour in the morning

and one hour in the afternoon, and

require a three hour advance notice for

commercial vessels needing a bridge

opening during the hours of closure due

to emergency situations. The existing 12

noon to 1 p.m. closure period would

remain unaffected by this proposed

change.

These changes to the drawbridge

regulations are intended to reduce

motor vehicle delays and congestion,

while still providing for the reasonable

needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (ob), Fifth Coast Guard

District, 431 Crawford Street,

Portsmouth, Virginia 23704–5004, or

may be delivered to Room 109 at the

same address between 8 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is (804) 398–6222. Comments will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection at Room 109,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator,

Fifth Coast Guard District, at (804) 398–

6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD05–94–116) and the specific

section of this proposal to which each

comment applies, and give the reason

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 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 proposal in

view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Commander

(ob) at the address 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.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Linda L.

Gilliam, Project Manager, Bridge

Section, and LCDR C.A. Abel, Project

Counsel, Fifth Coast Guard District

Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

The State Highway Administration,

Maryland Department of Transportation

(MDOT), has requested that openings of

the Main Street and US 50 drawbridges

across the North Prong of the Wicomico

River, mile 22.4, at Salisbury, Maryland,

be further restricted during the morning

and evening rush hours. This would

help to reduce highway traffic

congestion problems and relieve public

safety and welfare concerns associated

with frequent bridge openings caused by

commercial boat traffic. Currently, these

drawbridges open on signal except from

8 a.m. to 9 a.m., 12 noon to 1 p.m., and

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. during which

time both remain closed to navigation.

MDOT’s request is to change the hours

of bridge closures to 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. in

the morning and to 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in

the afternoon. The existing 12 noon to

1 p.m. closure would remain the same.

A review of the bridge logs provided

by MDOT revealed that the bridge

openings during 1992–1993 from 7 a.m.

to 8 a.m. in the morning and from 4–

4:30 p.m. to 5:30–6 p.m. in the evening

were caused by tugs and tugs with tows.

These openings are frequent enough to

cause highway traffic to back up on each

side of the bridge resulting in

congestion and delays.

This request is based on an analysis

MDOT conducted on highway traffic

and marine traffic data, along with a

waterway user and property owner

survey that was conducted in 1993.

Adjacent property owners had no

objection to the extended morning and

evening rush hours. According to

DELMARVA Water Transport

Committee, Inc., only two commercial

businesses are located upstream of the

bridge and one of these businesses has

expressed concern over extending the

periods of closure for these bridges.

Based on this concern, DELMARVA has

requested that the Coast Guard include

in the proposed rule a three hour

advance notice requirement for

commercial vessels needing passage

through the bridge during the hours of

restriction. This advance notice

requirement would only apply to tugs

and barges unable to reach the bridges

except during the hours of closure due

to severe inclement weather or other

emergency or unforeseen circumstances.

DELMARVA also contacted MDOT

with this request and MDOT agreed that

this provision should be added to the

proposed rule, provided commercial

vessels adhere to the ‘‘emergency only’’

requirement when taking advantage of

the three hour advance notice

exception. Based on DELMARVA’s

request and MDOT’s approval of this

request, the proposed rule will include

a provision requiring commercial

vessels to provide a three hour advance

notice for a bridge opening during the

hours of closure only if their transit is

delayed by inclement weather or other

emergency or unforeseen circumstances.

Other than this, commercial vessels will

be required to transit through these

bridges during the open-on-demand

hours.

The Administrative Director of

Wicomico County, Maryland notified

the Coast Guard that the county

supports MDOT’s request because of the

increase in highway traffic crossing

these bridges as a result of substantial

residential growth. The Salisbury Area

Chamber of Commerce also supports

these changes to the operating schedule