Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55727 

5. Merit review is used to select basic 

research projects for support. It is crucial that 

the Department of Defense invest in the 

highest quality research for defense needs. 

Merit review relies on the informed advice of 

qualified individuals who are independent of 

the individuals proposing to do the research. 

The principal merit review factors used in 

selecting among possible projects are 

technical merit and potential long-term 

relevance to defense missions. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–18985 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–05–117] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Trent River, NC 

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-tonavigation 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. 

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: