55728 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions, 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

would not create an environmental risk 

to health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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, Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.843, also issued 

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

Stat. 5039. 

■ 2. From 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on 

October 1, 2005, in § 117.843 suspend 

paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4) and add 

paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 117.843 Trent River. 

* * * * * 

(a)(5) From 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., on 

October 1, 2005, the U.S. 70 Bridge, 

mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC, shall remain 

closed to navigation. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

S.H. Ratti, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–19006 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 168 

[CGD 91–202; USCG–2003–14734] 

RIN 1625–AA05 (Formerly RIN 2115–AE10); 

RIN 1625–AA65 

Escort Vessels for Certain Tankers—

Crash Stop Criteria 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

permanently removing a ‘‘crash stop’’

requirement for tanker escort vessels in 

Prince William Sound and Puget Sound. 

The requirement appeared in a final rule 

published in 1994 under docket number 

CGD 91–202, but was suspended for 

safety reasons before it ever went into 

effect. Removal of the suspended 

provision is the final action for both the 

CGD 91–202 and the USCG–2003–14734 

rulemakings. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 24, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2003–14734 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. You may also find this 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call 

Lieutenant Commander Samson 

Stevens, GMSR–2, telephone 202–267–

0751, e-mail: SStevens@comdt.uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–0271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55729 

Regulatory History 

On March 28, 2005, we published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled 

Escort Vessels for Certain Oil Tankers—

Crash Stop Criteria (70 FR 15609). We 

received no comments on the proposed 

rule. No public meeting was requested 

and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

This rule addresses ‘‘unfinished 

business’’ from 1994. On August 19, 

1994, we published the final rule 

entitled Escort Vessels for Certain 

Tankers under docket number CGD 91–

202, which adopted 33 CFR part 168 (57 

FR 30058). The rule drew on a study to 

determine the capabilities of escort 

vessels to control disabled tankers. The 

study was published in two parts (59 FR 

1411, Jan. 10, 1994; 60 FR 6345, Feb. 1, 

1995). Preliminary data for the second 

study became available after publication 

of the final rule, but before the rule took 

effect on November 19, 1994. This 

preliminary data indicated that it might 

be dangerous to implement the final 

rule’s crash stop provision, 33 CFR 

168.50(b)(2). That provision required an 

escort vessel to be able to stop a 

disabled tanker within the same 

distance that it could ‘‘crash-stop,’’ that 

is, come to an emergency stop itself by 

putting its engine into full astern 

position, from a speed of 6 knots. 

Therefore, on November 1, 1994 (59 FR 

54519), we suspended the crash stop 

provision before it could take effect with 

the other provisions of part 168. In 

1995, the final results of the study of 

escort vessel capabilities showed that 

the crash stop criteria were not an 

effective performance characteristic for 

disabled tankers. No further action was 

taken with respect to the crash stop 

provision, and it remains suspended 

today. 

As long as the crash stop provision’s 

suspension remains in effect, we have 

continued reporting the CGD 91–202 

rulemaking on the Uniform Regulatory 

Agenda of the United States, the Federal 

Government’s official list of ongoing 

regulatory projects. CGD 91–202 appears 

in the most recent edition of the 

Agenda, under the Department of 

Homeland Security entries beginning at 

70 FR 26892 (May 16, 2005). Twice each 

year, the Coast Guard spends valuable 

administrative time maintaining its 

Uniform Regulatory Agenda reports, 

whether or not a reported project is 

active. 

For the reasons given under ‘‘Removal 

of Crash Stop Provision,’’ the Coast 

Guard maintains the position it first 

adopted in 1994, that the crash stop 

provision should not be implemented. 

Therefore, we now will permanently 

remove the crash stop provision. 

Removal of the crash stop provision also 

allows us to complete the CGD 91–202 

rulemaking. 

Since 1998, the Coast Guard has used 

the Department of Transportation’s 

Docket Management System (DMS) to 

make its rulemaking documents widely 

available to the public. DMS assigns 

unique docket numbers to each 

rulemaking, and the format of those 

docket numbers (e.g., USCG–2003–

14734) is not compatible with the 

format of Coast Guard pre-1998 

rulemaking docket numbers (e.g., CGD 

91–202). Therefore, in order to complete 

CGD 91–202 in a way that makes our 

actions visible to the public through 

DMS, we opened a DMS-compatible 

docket number, USCG–2003–14734. 

Thus, removal of the crash stop 

provision constitutes the final action for 

two rulemaking dockets with the same 

subject matter, CGD 91–202 and USCG–

2003–14734. 

Removal of Crash Stop Provision 

We received two public comments in 

response to our 1994 notice suspending 

33 CFR 168.50(b)(2). We placed both 

comments in the docket for USCG–

2003–14734. One comment supported 

the suspension. The other forwarded a 

copy of a technical evaluation of 33 CFR 

165.50(b), but did not address the crash 

stop criteria at all. As noted earlier, in 

1995, the final results of the study of 

escort vessel capabilities showed that 

the crash stop criteria were not an 

effective performance characteristic for 

disabled tankers. Additionally, we 

noted a significant increase in tractor 

tug availability in the waters to which 

part 168 applies, which allows for more 

effective response and action when a 

tanker becomes disabled. Taken 

together, these factors persuaded us to 

remove the crash stop provision of 33 

CFR 168.50(b)(2). Our March 2005 

NPRM, proposing removal, elicited no 

public comments that would alter our 

decision. Therefore we are proceeding 

with removal of the crash stop 

provision. The remainder of part 168 is 

not affected by this action. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. This rule allows us to finalize the 

status quo and close out CGD 91–202. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The application and impact of this 

rule is limited. First, the escort vessel 

regulations only apply to laden single 

hull tankers of 5,000 gross tons or more 

operating on Prince William Sound or 

Puget Sound. We estimate the number 

of these tankers is 18. This figure will 

diminish over time as these single hull 

tankers are phased out of service, as 

required by OPA 90. Second, small 

entities typically do not own or operate 

vessels of this size. These vessels are 

normally owned and operated by larger 

corporations, including subsidiaries of 

major oil companies. As the rule 

finalizes the status quo, we do not 

believe that we are imposing any new 

burden on small entities. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offered to assist small entities 

in understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

55730 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in the 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

will not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

Figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. An ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 168 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 168 as follows. 

PART 168—ESCORT REQUIREMENTS 

FOR CERTAIN TANKERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 168 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Section 4116(c), Pub. L. 101–

380, 104 Stat. 520 (46 U.S.C. 3703 note); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 170.1, para. 2(82). 

§ 168.50 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 168.50, remove and reserve 

paragraph (b)(2). 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

T.H. Gilmour, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and 

Environmental Protection. 

[FR Doc. 05–19005 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

36 CFR Part 1228 

RIN 3095–AB31 

Records Center Facility Standards 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: NARA published the final 

rule, Records Center Facility Standards, 

in the August 29, 2005, Federal Register 

(70 FR 50980). In that final rule, we 

revised § 1228.240(c) entirely, removing 

subordinate paragraphs 

§§ 1228.240(c)(1) and (c)(2). Paragraph 

§ 1228.240(d), which was not amended 

in the rulemaking, currently contains a 

sentence ‘‘For requests submitted under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, NARA 

also will review the submitted plan to 

ensure that the plan is realistic.’’ This 

correction removes that sentence. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Allard at 301–837–1477 or fax 

number 301–837–0319. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

05–17097 appearing on page 50980 in 

the Federal Register of Monday, August 

29, 2005, the following correction is 

made: 

PART 1228—[CORRECTED] 

§ 1228.240 [Corrected] 

■ On page 50988, in the second column, 

in Part 1228, Disposition of Federal 

Records, in amendment 9, the 

instruction ‘‘9. Amend § 1228.240 by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as 

follows:’’ and the amended text set forth 

are corrected to read: 

■ ‘‘9. Amend § 1228.240 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: