35702 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

25% withholding tax. The income in each of

these groups is reduced to zero, and the

foreign taxes imposed on the rental and

royalty income are considered related to

general limitation income. The remaining

loss of ($200) constitutes a separate

limitation loss with respect to passive

income.

* * * * *

Margaret Milner Richardson,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 96–17004 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD 11–90–03]

RIN–2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Cerritos Channel, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the Port of

Los Angeles, the Coast Guard is

proposing a temporary change to the

regulations for the Henry Ford Avenue

Railroad Bridge (Ford Bridge), across

Cerritos Channel of Los Angeles/Long

Beach Harbor, mile 4.8, at Long Beach,

California, to authorize a five month

(150 day) closure of the bridge to

replace the movable span and erect the

support towers. The proposed closure

would start November 7, 1996 and

conclude on April 7, 1997. If these dates

change, the actual 5 month closure dates

will be advertised in the Local Notice to

Mariners. The bridge, also known as the

Badger Avenue Bridge, currently

remains open to navigation except for

the passage of trains. This proposal is

being made because the bridge needs to

be replaced to preserve rail access to

Terminal Island and to insure reliable

service to vessel traffic.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (oan-br), Eleventh Coast

Guard District, Building 50–6, Coast

Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501–

5100, or may be delivered to the same

address between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The telephone number is

number is (510) 437–3514. Commander

(oan-br) maintains the public docket for

this rulemaking. Comments will become

part of this docket and will be available

for inspection or copying at Bldg. 10,

Room 214, Coast Guard Island,

Alameda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Worden, Bridge Section, Eleventh

Coast Guard District, at (501) 437–3461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Additional 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

(CGD 11–90–03) and the specific section

of this proposal to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Persons wanting

acknowledgement of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

Comments previously submitted have

been entered into the record and need

not be resubmitted.

The Commander, Eleventh Coast

Guard district will evaluate all

communications received and

determine a final course of action on

this proposal. The proposed regulations

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

The Cost Guard plans no public

hearing, but one may be held if written

requests for a hearing are received, and

it is determined that the opportunity to

make oral presentations will add to the

rulemaking process.

Discussion of the Proposal

Regulatory History

This supplements a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking dated August 28,

1990 (55 FR 35154), which discussed a

six and one-half month closure of the

bridge draw for bridge rehabilitation,

from February 1, 1991 through August

15, 1991. The Ford Bridge provides the

only rail access to port facilities on

Terminal Island. The bridge is over 70

years old and no longer meets California

seismic standards or Federal Railroad

Administration clearance standards.

The bridge owner determined that the

bridge could not be rehabilitated

economically, and in 1993 applied for a

permit to replace the bridge. In 1995,

the Coast Guard issued a permit for its

replacement. The new bridge is

currently under construction, and it is

anticipated that the work can be

accomplished with a slightly shorter

closure period. Since more than five

years has elapsed since the publication

of the NPRM, an additional opportunity

for public comment is being provided.

The four comments received on the

previous NPRM will be considered part

of the record.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) in 1990 was for the earlier plan

to rehabilitate the bridge, a plan that is

no longer feasible. That NPRM, which

involved a slightly longer closure,

generated only four comments: Pacific

Towing Company requested one leaf

operation of the bridge; Jacobson Pilot

Service requested the closure period to

be kept to a minimum; Dow Chemical

expressed concern about land access

during construction; and the Port of

Long Beach wrote supporting the

proposal.

Because of the change from

rehabilitation to reconstruction, it is not

possible to have the bridge in partial

service during the construction of the

towers and lift span for which the

closure is necessary. The Coast Guard

has reviewed the construction plans and

determined that the proposed closure is

the shortest feasible time period

consistent with safety and good

engineering practice. The bridge

construction will only cause brief

interruptions to rail service or land

access to nearby facilities.

The revised bridge plan has been

advertised in the Federal Register on

three occasions: a Notice of Intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) (58 F.R. 28087); a Notice

of Availability of the Draft EIS (59 F.R.

6639); and a Notice of Availability of the

final EIS (59 F.R. 60631).

The circulation of the Coast Guard

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Ford Bridge Replacement Project

provided additional opportunities for

public comment on the bridge closure.

No comments were received addressing

the closure. Because the revised plan

has been advertised extensively and no

opposition has thus far been expressed,

the Coast Guard for good cause believes

that a 30 day comment period is

adequate to solicit any remaining

comments on this supplemental notice

of proposed rulemaking.

Current Proposal

The Port of Los Angeles has requested

the bridge span closure to allow them to

safely construct the replacement bridge.

The proposed closure of the span would

start November 7, 1996, and conclude

on April 7, 1997. If these dates change,

the actual 5 month closure dates will be

advertised in the Local Notice to

Mariners.

The Ford Avenue Railroad Bridge

provides vertical clearance of 14 feet

above Mean Lower Low Water (9 feet

above Mean High Water) when closed.

The waterway is a connecting channel

in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor

complex and is used by oceangoing

cargo ships, tugs and barges, tour boats,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 35703

commercial fishing vessels and

recreational boats. The alternate route

past the bridge site is through the outer

harbor, with a maximum detour of 10

miles.

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 costs 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

Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for the

NPRM has been superceded by the

economic analysis in the Coast Guard

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) for the Ford Bridge Replacement

dated November 25, 1994. A copy of the

FEIS has been placed in the rulemaking

docket, and may be inspected and

copied at the address listed under

ADDRESSES.

Replacement of the existing bridge

was determined to be the most feasible

and prudent alternative. This

replacement cannot be accomplished

without closing the bridge span for a

period of months. To minimize the

impact on the maritime community, the

applicant plans to work an accelerated

schedule to complete the work requiring

the bridge closure in five months.

Increased costs to the marine industry

are estimated to be $1 million due to

detours during a five month closure.

The overtime work schedule increases

overall project costs approximately $2.2

million. The applicant estimates that if

the contractor were required to work

only a standard 40 hour work week,

they would need a closure of eleven

months to complete work. Thus, the

impact to the maritime industry has

been minimized. On balance, the short

term costs due to the detour will be

offset by the long-term benefits gained

by the operation of a new, more reliable

bridge. The new bridge will ensure

uninterrupted rail service to Terminal

Island, and timely, reliable openings of

the bridge for waterborne traffic.

Construction of a new bridge will

minimize the possibility of congestion

or delays in transit times, which would

occur if the existing bridge

malfunctioned, or was damaged by

seismic activity.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must consider whether this proposal

will 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). During the environmental

review process, the Coast Guard

determined that the economic impact to

navigation would be approximately $1

million. Almost half of that impact was

on the towing and tour boat operations

of one company who does not qualify as

a ‘‘small business concern’’. The

remaining economic impact was on

recreational mariners berthed at nearby

marinas and two other towing

companies. Recreational mariners

would have small additional costs to

travel as much as 5 miles further to fuel

docks, pumpout stations, etc. The cost

per recreational vessel is estimated to be

less than $100. the towing companies

would have additional costs for

personnel and fuel to travel as much as

5 miles further to towing assignments.

The cost per towing company is

estimated to be less than $100 thousand.

These companies will all benefit from

the reliable operation of the new bridge

span for many years to come. Since

there are only a few small entities

affected by the 5 month closure, and the

effect is short-time, the Coast Guard

certifies under section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) that this rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this rule

does not raise sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

together with the overall impacts of the

replacement project in their FEIS for the

Henry Ford (Badger Avenue) Bridge

Replacement Project dated November

25, 1994. The principal environmental

impact of the project was the loss of the

existing, historic bridge. The

environmental impacts of this rule were

marine transportation disruptions,

economic impacts to waterway users,

and minor increases in air pollution

from detouring marine vessels. The

Coast Guard determined that there was

no feasible and prudent alternative to

the loss of the historic bridge to meet

the needs of future transportation and

safety. A new bridge will allow for

increased carriage of goods to and from

the port by rail, rather than by truck,

resulting in a net decrease in air

pollution. On balance, the short-term

impacts to navigation will be offset by

long-term benefits to navigation from

construction of a new, more reliable

bridge. The FEIS supercedes the draft

Environmental Assessment prepared for

the NPRM. The FEIS is available for

review at the address under ADDRESSES.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges

Regulation: For the reasons set out in

the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes

to amend 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; and

33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued

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

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.147 is amended by

suspending paragraph (b) and adding a

new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 117.147 Cerritos Channel.

* * * * *

(c) During the period November 7,

1996 through April 7, 1997 the Henry

Ford Avenue railroad bridge, mile 4.4 at

Long Beach, will be undergoing

reconstruction and the draw need not

open for the passage of vessels.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

D.D. Polk,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District Acting.

[FR Doc. 96–17301 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[CGD 96–030]

Port Access Routes; Approaches to

the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet,

North Carolina

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of study.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

conducting a port access route study to

evaluate the need for vessel routing or

other traffic management measures in

the approaches to the Cape Fear River

and Beaufort Inlet, NC. Concerns for the