Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 117 
          - [CGD05-05-117] 
          - RIN 1625-AA09 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Temporary final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations that govern the operation of the U.S. 70 Bridge across the Trent River, at mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. This rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., on October 1, 2005, to facilitate the Neuse River Bridge Run. 

# DATES:

This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on October 1, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, as part of docket CGD05-05-117 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6629. Fifth District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Good Cause for Not Publishing a NPRM 

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as the Neuse River run is scheduled for October 1st, and immediate action is necessary to minimize the potential danger to the public. The bridge closure is a necessary measure to facilitate public safety that allows for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic before, during and after the run. 

## Good Cause for Making Rule Effective in Less Than 30 Days 

                    Under 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    . A 30-day delayed effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as the event is scheduled for October 1, 2005, and immediate action is necessary to ensure public safety and provide for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic during the run.                 

## Background and Purpose 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate the Neuse River Bridge Run. The run is an annual event, attracting participants from the surrounding cities and states. 

The existing regulations are outlined at 33 CFR 117.843(a). The bridge has a vertical clearance of 13 feet at mean high water in the closed position, unlimited vertical clearance in the full open position. The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the closure periods for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact during the Neuse River Bridge Run. 

## 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. This conclusion is based fact that the Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of this rule and that the mariners can plan their trips in accordance with scheduled closure period. 

## 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 Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the Coast Guard has informed the know users of the waterway, which consist mostly of recreational boaters and fisherman, of this rule and that the mariners can plan their trips in accordance with scheduled closure period. 

## Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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 process. 

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, 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.                           ( print page 55728)    

## 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 

* * * * *

(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