Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7927

adequate reclamation or abatement at the

site; and

(4) The site qualifies as a priority site; and

two site pursuant to section 403(a)(1) and (2)

of SMCRA. Priority will be given to those

sites which are in the immediate vicinity of

a residential area or which have an adverse

economic impact upon a community.

IV. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15(a), OSM is

seeking comments on whether the

proposed amendment satisfies the

applicable plan approval criteria of 30

CFR 884.14. If the amendment is

deemed adequate, it will become part of

the Navajo Nation plan.

1. Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under ‘‘DATES’’ or at

locations other than the Albuquerque

Field Office will not necessarily be

considered in the final rulemaking or

included in the administrative record.

2. Public Hearing

Persons wishing to testify at the

public hearing should contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,

m.s.t., February 27, 1995. Any disabled

individual who has need for a special

accommodation to attend a public

hearing should contact the individual

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. The location and time of the

hearing will be arranged with those

persons requesting the hearing. If no one

requests an opportunity to testify at the

public hearing, the hearing will not be

held.

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to testify have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to testify, and who wish

to do so, will be heard following those

who have been scheduled. The hearing

will end after all persons scheduled to

testify and persons present in the

audience who wish to testify have been

heard.

3. Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to testify at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

administrative record.

V. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State or Tribal AMLR

plans and revisions thereof since each

such plan is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM.

Decisions on proposed State or Tribe

AMLR plans and revisions thereof

submitted by a State or Tribe are based

on a determination of whether the

submittal meets the requirements of

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and the applicable Federal

regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and 888.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State or Tribe

AMLR plans and revisions thereof are

categorically excluded from compliance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of

the Department of the Interior (516 DM

6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this 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.). The Tribal submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon Federal regulations for which an

economic analysis was prepared and

certification made that such regulations

would not have a significant economic

effect upon a substantial number of

small entities. Accordingly, this rule

will ensure that existing requirements

established by SMCRA or previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the Tribe. In making

the determination as to whether this

rule would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions in the analyses for

the corresponding Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 756

Abandoned mine land reclamation

program, Indian lands.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Assistant Director, Western Support

Center.

[FR Doc. 95–3314 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Chapter I

[CGD 94–100]

Withholding of Vessel Clearances or

Permits; Identification of Satisfactory

Sureties in Lieu of Clearance or Permit

Denial

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

authorized, under several statutes, to

request that the Customs Service refuse

or revoke a vessel’s clearance if the

vessel’s owner or operator may be

subject to a penalty for violating the

provisions of the authorizing statutes.

These statutes also provide that the

vessel may be cleared upon the filing of

a bond or other surety satisfactory to the

Coast Guard. However, because there

are currently no uniform standards

governing the form and terms of an

acceptable surety, the policies applied

have differed among the Coast Guard

districts. The Coast Guard is requesting

comments on what problems, if any, are

created by these variations and what

solutions, if any, are desirable. The

Coast Guard may initiate rulemaking

based upon the comments received.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 94–100),
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