Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18061

(5) The digital conversion and compression

of photographic and video imagery are

authorized.

(6) Photographic and video postproduction enhancement, including

animation, digital simulation, graphics, and

special effects, used for dramatic or narrative

effect in education, recruiting, safety and

training illustrations, publications, or

productions is authorized under either of the

following conditions:

(a) the enhancement does not misrepresent

the subject of the original image, or;

(b) it is clearly and readily apparent from

the context or from the content of the image

or accompanying text that the enhanced

image is not intended to be an accurate

representation of any actual event.

b. Official Defense imagery includes all

photographic and video images, regardless of

the medium in which they are acquired,

stored, or displayed, that are recorded or

produced by persons acting for or on behalf

of Department of Defense activities,

functions, or missions.

My intent with the above policy is to

ensure the absolute credibility of official DoD

photographic and video imagery within and

outside the Department of Defense.

This memorandum is effective

immediately. A DoD Directive incorporating

the substance of this memorandum shall be

issued within 90 days.

John Deutsch

Dated: March 30, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–8239 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD09–95–008]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Chicago River, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to form a

negotiated rulemaking committee;

request for public comment and

membership.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard intends to

form a negotiated rulemaking committee

to develop regulations governing the

operation of drawbridges over the

Chicago River in Chicago, Illinois for the

passage of recreational vessels. The

Coast Guard will establish the

committee under the provisions of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and

the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: Comments and nominations for

membership must be received on or

before May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and nominations

for membership should be sent to Mr.

Robert Bloom, Chief, Bridge Branch,

Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East

Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio, or may be

delivered to room 2083D at the same

address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The telephone number is (216)

522–3993. Comments will become part

of the docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 2083D, at

the same address between 8 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal person involved in

drafting this document are Mr. Robert

Bloom, Chief, Bridge Branch, and

Commander James M. Collin, District

Legal Officer, Ninth Coast Guard

District, Cleveland, Ohio.

Background

On April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18298), the

Coast Guard issued an amendment to its

regulation for drawbridge operations on

the Chicago River (33 CFR 117.391). The

amendment replaced on-demand

drawbridge openings for recreational

vessels, except during rush hour

periods, with significant restrictions on

openings, flotilla specifications and

advance notice requirements. Prior

temporary deviations to the regulations,

permitted under 33 CFR 117.43, also

had restricted drawbridge openings.

On September 26, 1994, the Coast

Guard’s action was rescinded by the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia in the Court’s order

in the case of Crowley’s Yacht Yard, Inc.

Plaintiff v. Federico Pen ́ a, Secretary,

United States Department of

Transportation, Defendant (C.A. No.

94–1152 SSH), which also reinstated the

previous regulation.

In response to the Court’s action and

to obtain data for a new regulatory

initiative, the District Commander

issued a temporary deviation to the

regulations for the period from October

11, 1994 to December 5, 1994 and

received public comments through

January 15, 1995. The deviation also

permitted only limited weekday

openings, required advance notice for

openings, and included flotilla

specifications.

On February 10, 1995, the District

Commander authorized a 90 day

deviation for the period for April 15,

1995 through July 14, 1995, request

written comments, and scheduled a

public hearing (60 FR 8941, February

16, 1995). That deviation, described in

the Federal Register notice, would have

required twenty-four hour notice for all

openings, but did not restrict the timing

of openings, except to exclude the rush

hour periods recognized in the

regulations currently in force. Based on

all information available, including the

written comments received to date and

the presentations made at the public

hearing held on March 9, 1995 in

Chicago, the District Commander has

revised the deviation and a notice of the

revisions is published in this issue of

the Federal Register. This revised

deviation authorizes limited openings

on specified weekdays with advance

notice, as well as weekend openings.

The traditional notice and comment

rulemaking process, augmented by the

procedures for deviations, has not

generated a permenant and acceptable

resolution to the issue of drawbridge

openings on the Chicago River.

Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to

form a negotiated rulemaking committee

as an alternative process to produce an

acceptable and enduring amendment to

33 CFR 117.391. Negotiated rulemaking

does not guarantee success. If, for any

reason, the Coast Guard is unable to

convene a negotiated rulemaking

committee, or if the committee is unable

to reach a consensus on the content of

a proposed rule, the Coast Guard will

taken action to publish a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to

initiate a traditional notice and

comment rulemaking. The Coast

Guard’s goal is to publish a NPRM in

July and a final rule by September 14,

1995.

Regulatory Negotiation

In 1990, Congress passed the

Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990

(Pub. L. 101–648) (Reg-Neg Act) to

establish a framework under which

federal agencies could conduct

negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated

rulemaking is an adjunct to, and not a

substitute for, the traditional notice and

comment procedure described in the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

551 et seq.) for developing regulations.

The Reg-Neg Act encourages federal

agencies to consider bringing together

representatives of all affected interests

to resolve issues through negotiation.

Negotiated rulemaking allows

participants to focus less on individual

positions and enables them to cooperate

to develop a regulation that best

incorporates all interests.

The Coast Guard and other

administrations in the Department of

Transportation has used negotiated

rulemaking successfully. These prior

experiences demonstrate that interested

parties working together indeed are able
18062 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

to identify major issues, gauge the

importance of issues to interested

parties, identify information and data

important to resolving issues, and

develop a proposal that is acceptable to

all affected interests. Consequently, this

approach results in practical regulations

that accommodate the needs of all

affected parties to the extent practicable.

One of the recommendations of The

National Performance Review (REG 03)

was that federal agencies should use

negotiated rulemaking more frequently.

In a March 4, 1995 memorandum,

President Clinton directed the heads of

executive agencies to use negotiated

rulemaking as one of the important tools

for streamlining and improving the

regulatory process.

Procedures and Guidelines

Subject to appropriate changes which

may be made either as a result of

comments received in response to this

notice or during the negotiation process,

the following proposed procedures and

guidelines will apply to the negotiated

rulemaking discussed in this notice. The

Coast Guard is taking the necessary

preliminary steps to charter a negotiated

rulemaking committee and secure the

services of a facilitator, the neutral party

who would chair the committee and

assist the negotiating process.

1. Notice of Intent to Establish a

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and

Request for Comment

When an agency of the federal

government establishes or uses a group

of people in the interest of obtaining

advice or recommendations, it must

charter the group as a federal advisory

committee in accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. App.) (FACA). Public notice of

formation of an advisory committee is

addressed as well by the Reg-Neg Act.

This Federal Register notice indicates

the Coast Guard’s intent to charter the

Chicago Drawbridge Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee (committee)

and—

a. Identifies the issues involved in the

rulemaking;

b. Identifies the affected interests;

c. Solicits public comment on the use

of regulatory negotiation for the

rulemaking and on the identified issues,

parties, and guidelines.

2. Issue for Negotiation

The committee would attempt to

reach consensus on amendments to 33

CFR 117.391, the regulation governing

the opening of City of Chicago-owned

bridges over the Chicago River, as it

applies to recreational vessels.

3. Participants

The number of participants in the

committee would not exceed 12 to

ensure effective communications and

consensus building. The Coast Guard is

making inquiries among identified

interests to determine if it is possible to

agree on representatives of those

interests and on the scope of the issues

to be addressed. The Coast Guard

believes that negotiation has the best

prospects for successful resolution of

the issues.

One purpose of this notice is to assist

the Coast Guard in determining whether

there are other interests that may be

affected substantially by the

negotiations but would not be

represented by the affected interests

listed later in the notice. It is not

necessary for each potentially affected

individual or organization to have its

own representative. Rather each interest

should be represented adequately by the

selected parties, and the committee

should be balanced fairly. Individuals

and organizations who are not members

of the committee may attend the

negotiating sessions and confer with

committee members.

4. Requests for Representation

Persons or organizations who believe

they would be impacted significantly by

any proposed amendment to 33 CFR

117.391 and who believe their interests

would not be represented adequately by

any of the potential participants

specified later in this notice may apply

for, or nominate another person for,

membership on the committee. The

application or nomination must include:

(1) the name of the applicant or

nominee and a brief description of the

interest the person represents; (2)

evidence that the applicant or nominee

is authorized to represent parties related

to the interest the person proposes to

represent; (3) a written commitment that

the applicant or nominee would

participate in good faith; and (4) the

reason that the interests specified in this

notice do not represent adequately the

interests of the applicant or nominee.

Such applications should be submitted

to the contact person at the address

provided at the beginning of the notice

by the deadline indicated.

If other persons or interests request

membership in the negotiations, the

Coast Guard will determine whether

those interest would be affected

substantially and whether they would

be represented adequately by an

identified interest. After reviewing the

comments, the Coast Guard will issue a

notice announcing the establishment of

the committee, unless it determines that

regulatory negotiation is not practicable.

Negotiations will begin soon after a

committee is chartered and a notice is

published in the Federal Register.

5. Good Faith

Participants must be willing to

negotiate in good faith. In this regard, it

is important that each interest group,

including the Coast Guard, designate

senior personnel to represent its

members. The Coast Guard expects the

representatives to inform their

respective interest groups of the

progress of the negotiations during the

process. If the negotiations are to be

successful, the interest groups should be

willing to accept the product of the

committee.

6. Facilitator

The Coast Guard will use a neutral

facilitator to conduct the negotiations in

an efficient manner. The facilitator is

not involved with the substantive

development of enforcement of the

regulation. The facilitator serves as chair

of the committee and may confer with

and offer suggestions to the other

members on reaching consensus. This

person also may request the parties to

present additional material or to

reconsider their positions. As a neutral

party, a facilitator is able to make

objective decisions about negotiating

particular issues and identifying

particular interests.

7. Administrative Support and Meetings

The Ninth Coast Guard District would

provide support services to the

committee for conducting its meetings

and drafting its proposal. The meetings

of the committee would take place in

Chicago. If regulatory negotiation is

chosen, it is the Coast Guard’s goal to

convene the committee on or about June

5, 1995 for an information, orientation,

and administrative procedure session.

Negotiation would commence on or

about June 12, 1995 after the majority of

the Spring breakout season has passed.

Negotiations would continue on a

weekly basis, with the committee

meeting perhaps daily at some times, in

order to reach consensus by July 7,

1995. A short schedule for the

committee is essential if the Coast

Guard is to meet its goal of publishing

a NPRM in July and a final rule by

September 14, 1995 in order for new

regulations to be effective for the Fall

return of vessels to the boatyards. The

date and location of the first meeting

would be announced in the Federal

Register. Because of the anticipated

compressed schedule of meetings, the

Coast Guard would develop a

procedure, such as a call-in number or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18063

electronic bulletin board, to provide upto-date information on scheduled

meetings.

It is anticipated that following the

close of the public comment period, the

committee would meet briefly to

consider the comments received and

prepare its final report on any desired

modifications in the final rule.

8. Consensus

The goal of the negotiating process is

consensus. Generally, consensus means

that each interest should concur in the

result. The facilitator would mediate the

negotiation process.

9. Record of Meetings

In accordance with the FACA

requirements, the Coast Guard would

keep a record of all committee meetings.

The minutes would be placed in the

public docket for the rulemaking

(CGD09–95–004). Committee meetings

would be open to the public, subject to

space availability.

10. Committee Protocols

Under the general guidance of the

facilitator, and subject to applicable

legal requirements, the committee

would establish protocols for its

meetings.

11. Agency Action on Committee

Proposal

The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard

District would publish any proposal on

which the committee reaches consensus

as a NPRM, providing the proposal is

consistent with the Coast Guard’s

statutory authority and Executive Order

12866. If the committee’s proposal is

modified in any manner, the NPRM

would identify the modifications so that

the public could distinguish the

modifications from the committee’s

proposal. If the committee does not

reach consensus, it shall report on those

areas on which agreement was reached.

12. Final Committee Report

The committee will be furnished

copies of any comments received on the

NPRM and will have an opportunity to

meet and consider modifications to its

recommendations based on those

comments. If consensus can be reached,

the committee’s final report would

recommend a final rule. Commander,

Ninth Coast Guard District would then

issue the rule amending 33 CFR

117.391, providing it is consistent with

Coast Guard authority and Executive

Order 12866.

13. Termination

The committee would terminate on

the date indicated in its charter

(September 30, 1995) or when it submits

its final report to the Coast Guard,

whichever is earlier.

14. Failure of the Committee to Reach

Consensus

In the event that the committee is

unable to reach consensus, the Coast

Guard will develop a NPRM or final

rule, as appropriate, and publish it in

the Federal Register. As stated

previously, the Coast Guard’s goal is to

publish a NPRM in July and a final rule

by September 14, 1995.

Potential Participants

The committee members should have

expertise in the issues under negotiation

and should be able to represent

adequately their affected interests. The

Coast Guard has identified the following

as interests affected by the rulemaking:

the City of Chicago; boatyards; boaters;

and the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition,

Chicago business groups and public

interest organizations have expressed

concern over the operation of the

Chicago River bridges. The Coast Guard

has initiated discussions with

representatives of potential members of

the committee, and will continue those

overtures, to explain the Reg-Neg

process and to determine the likelihood

of being able to convene a successful

Reg-Neg committee. The Coast Guard is

pleased that officials of the City of

Chicago have indicated their

willingness to participate.

Formation of the committee will

allow representatives of all affected

interests to participate directly in the

rulemaking process. The Coast Guard

welcomes comment on the

appropriateness of these interests for

participation in the negotiation.

Suggestions for other potential

participants are encouraged, but it is not

necessary for every concerned

organization to be represented,

providing that all affected interests are

represented adequately. Further,

negotiating sessions will be open to the

public who may communicate with

committee members. The Coast Guard

will ensure that the committee is

balanced with respect to the interests

represented.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

Rudy K. Peschel,

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

Ninth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–8759 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD13–95–008]

Safety Zone Regulations; Bellingham

Bay, Bellingham, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

to adopt permanent safety zone

regulations for the annual Fourth of July

Blast Over Bellingham Fireworks

Display in Bellingham, Washington.

This event is held each year on the

Fourth of July on the waters of

Bellingham Bay. In the past, the Coast

Guard has established a temporary

safety zone each year to protect the

safety of life on the navigable waters

during this event. However, because the

event recures annually, the Coast Guard

is proposing to adopt a permanent

description of the event and permanent

regulations to better inform the boating

public.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to U.S. Coast Guard Group

Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way So., Seattle,

WA 98134. The comments and other

materials referenced in this notice will

be available for inspection and copying

at the above address in Building One,

Room 130, Operations Division. Normal

office hours are between 7 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

federal holidays. Comments may also be

hand-delivered to this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT Susan Workman, Assistant

Operations Officer, U.S. Coast Guard

Group Seattle, (Telephone: (206) 217–

6009).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, and arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses, identify this

notice, specify the section of this notice

to which each comment applies, and

give the reason for each comment. Two

copies of each comment should be

provided in an unbound format. All

comments should be on paper no larger

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches and should be

suitable for copying and electronic

filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment

of receipt of their comments should

enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelops.

The proposed regulations may be

changed in light of comments received.