Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62061 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2005–22–09 Aerospatiale: Amendment 39–

14353. Docket No. FAA–2005–22795; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–193–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

14, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Aerospatiale 

Model ATR42–200, –300, –320, and –500 

airplanes, and Model ATR72–101, –201, 

–102, –202, –211, –212, and –212A airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report that a fuel 

quality indicator (FQI) having an incorrect 

part number was installed on a Model ATR72 

airplane. We are issuing this AD to ensure 

that a correct FQI is installed. An incorrect 

FQI could result in fuel starvation to the 

engine and consequent engine shutdown 

during flight. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection and Corrective Action 

(f) Within 7 days after the effective date of 

this AD, do the inspection specified in 

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Perform an inspection to determine the 

part number (P/N) of the fuel quantity 

indicator (FQI) 3QT, in accordance with ATR 

All Operators Message (AOM) 42–72/2005/ 

08, issue 5, dated September 7, 2005. Instead 

of the inspection, a review of the airplane 

maintenance records is acceptable if the P/N 

of the FQI can be positively determined from 

that review. 

(2) Inspect the faceplate of the FQI to verify 

that it has the correct markings as specified 

in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii), as 

applicable. 

(i) For Model ATR42–200, –300, –320, and 

–500 airplanes: The FQI has the marking of 

4960 lbs on the faceplate as illustrated in 

ATR AOM 42–72/2005/08, issue 5, dated 

September 7, 2005. 

(ii) For Model ATR72–101, –201, –102, 

–202, –211, –212, and –212A airplanes: The 

FQI has the marking of 5500 lbs on the 

faceplate as illustrated in the AOM 42–72/ 

2005/08, issue 5, dated September 7, 2005. 

(g) If it can be positively determined, 

during the inspection required by paragraph 

(f) of this AD, that the FQI has the correct 

part number or marking, no further action is 

required by this AD. 

(h) If it is determined, during the 

inspection required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD, that the FQI does not have the correct 

part number or marking, before further flight, 

install the FQI having the correct part 

number as specified in ATR AOM 42–72/ 

2005/08, issue 5, dated September 7, 2005. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(j) French emergency airworthiness 

directive UF–2005–160, dated September 8, 

2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use ATR All Operators 

Message (AOM) 42–72/2005/08, issue 5, 

dated September 7, 2005, to perform the 

actions that are required by this AD, unless 

the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of 

the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of this document 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. Contact Aerospatiale, 316 Route de 

Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France, 

for a copy of this service information. You 

may review copies at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, Nassif 

Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov; or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

18, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21338 Filed 10–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 351 

[Docket No. 050803215–5260–02] 

RIN 0625–AA69 

Procedures for Conducting Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is amending its 

regulations related to sunset reviews to 

conform the existing regulation to the 

United States’ obligations under Articles 

6.1, 6.2, and 11.3 of the Agreement on 

the Implementation of Article VI of the 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

1994 (‘‘Antidumping Agreement’’). The 

regulations amend the ‘‘waiver’’

provisions which govern treatment of 

interested parties who do not provide a 

substantive response to the 

Department’s notice of initiation of a 

sunset review and clarify the basis for 

parties’ participation in a public hearing 

in an expedited sunset review. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

rule is October 31, 2005. The final rule 

will be applied in sunset reviews 

initiated on or after the effective date. 

62062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacy J. Ettinger or Patrick V. Gallagher, 

Office of the Chief Counsel for Import 

Administration, room 3622, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania 

Avenue and 14th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4618 or (202) 482–5053, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 20, 1998, the Department 

published regulations addressing the 

procedures for participation in, and 

conduct of, sunset reviews. See 63 FR 

13516. On December 17, 2004, the 

Dispute Settlement Body (‘‘DSB’’) of the 

World Trade Organization adopted the 

reports of the Appellate Body and the 

dispute settlement panel in United 

States—Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Measures on Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from Argentina, WT/ 

DS268/AB/R (November 29, 2004) and 

WT/DS268/R (July 16, 2004), 

respectively. The AB and the dispute 

settlement panel found that the waiver 

provisions of section 751(c)(4)(B) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 and section 

351.218(d)(2)(iii) of Commerce’s sunset 

regulations are inconsistent with 

Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 11.3 of the 

Antidumping Agreement. 

Section 123 of the URAA governs the 

process for changes to the Department’s 

regulations where a dispute settlement 

panel and/or the Appellate Body finds 

a regulatory provision to be inconsistent 

with any of the WTO agreements. 

Consistent with section 123(g)(1)(C), on 

August 15, 2005, the Department 

published proposed amendments to its 

regulations related to sunset reviews to 

conform the existing regulations to the 

United States’ obligations under Articles 

6.1, 6.2, and 11.3 of the Antidumping 

Agreement. The Department received 

four sets of written public comments on 

the proposed amendments. The 

Department has carefully considered 

each of the comments it received, and 

has adopted a drafting suggestion from 

one commenter related to the issue of 

the basis for parties’ participating in a 

hearing in an expedited sunset review. 

This final rule is published pursuant to 

section 123(g)(1)(F) of the URAA. The 

final rule amends the ‘‘waiver’’

provisions which govern treatment of 

interested parties who do not provide a 

complete substantive response to the 

Department’s Notice of Initiation of a 

sunset review and clarifies the basis for 

parties’ participation in a public hearing 

in an expedited sunset review. 

Explanation of Amendments 

In finalizing the amendments to the 

Department’s regulations addressing the 

procedures for participation in, and 

conduct of, sunset reviews, the 

Department carefully considered each of 

the comments it received. The following 

is an explanation of the amendments, as 

well as a summary of the comments 

received and the Department’s 

responses to those comments. 

Section 351.218 

Section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Tariff Act 

provides that where an interested party 

‘‘waives’’ its participation in a sunset 

review, the Department ‘‘shall conclude 

that revocation of the order * * * 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping or a 

countervailable subsidy (as the case may 

be) with respect to that interested 

party.’’ Paragraph (d)(2) of 19 CFR 

351.218 deals with the procedure for 

waiving participation in a sunset review 

before the Department. Specifically, 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) provides for filing a 

‘‘statement of waiver’’ for parties 

electing not to participate in the 

Department’s sunset review (so-called 

‘‘affirmative waiver’’), and paragraph 

(d)(2)(iii) provides that failure to file a 

complete substantive response to a 

notice of initiation also will be treated 

as a waiver of participation (so-called 

‘‘deemed waiver’’). The panel and 

Appellate Body found that the operation 

of the statutory and regulatory waiver 

provisions was inconsistent with the 

obligation under Article 11.3 to arrive at 

a ‘‘reasoned conclusion’’ because the 

Department’s order-wide likelihood 

determination would be based, at least 

in part, on statutorily-mandated 

‘‘assumptions’’ about a company’s 

likelihood of dumping. The AB and 

panel also found that the operation of 

paragraph (d)(2)(iii) was inconsistent 

with ‘‘due process rights’’ of Articles 6.1 

and 6.2, because the Department could 

assume likelihood with respect to a 

particular company even though that 

party had filed a substantive response to 

the notice of initiation, albeit an 

‘‘incomplete’’ response. 

To implement the AB and panel 

findings with respect to the operation of 

the waiver provisions, the Department 

has modified its regulations to eliminate 

the possibility that the Department’s 

order-wide likelihood determinations 

would be based on assumptions about 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping or a countervailable subsidy 

due to interested parties’ waiver of 

participation in sunset reviews. 

Specifically, the Department has made 

the following three modifications to 

paragraph (d)(2) of 19 CFR 351.218. 

First, with respect to so-called 

‘‘affirmative waivers’’ set forth in 

paragraph (d)(2)(i)—which provides that 

a party may elect not to participate in 

the Department’s sunset review by filing 

a ‘‘statement of waiver’’ within 30 days 

of initiation of the sunset review—the 

Department has amended the contents 

of a ‘‘statement of waiver’’ which are set 

forth in paragraph (d)(2)(ii). Paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii) now requires that a party filing 

a Statement of Waiver include a 

statement that it is likely to dump or 

benefit from a countervailable subsidy 

(as the case may be) or, in the case of 

a foreign government in a CVD sunset 

review, provide a countervailable 

subsidy, if the order is revoked or the 

investigation is terminated. Second, we 

have eliminated paragraph (d)(2)(iii)—

which provided that an interested party 

is ‘‘deemed’’ to have waived 

participation in the sunset review by 

failing to file a complete substantive 

response to a notice of initiation. Thus, 

the Department will no longer make 

company-specific likelihood findings 

for companies that fail to file a 

statement of waiver and fail to file a 

substantive response to the notice of 

initiation. Finally, we modified 

paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(C) and 

(e)(1)(ii)(B)(3)—which address waiver of 

participation by a foreign government in 

a CVD sunset review—to eliminate 

cross-references to paragraph (d)(2)(iii) 

and to eliminate certain language that 

might suggest the possibility that the 

Department’s order-wide likelihood 

determination in a CVD sunset review 

would be based on assumptions about 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of a countervailable subsidy. In sum, 

these three modifications to the waiver 

provisions of the Department’s sunset 

regulations ensure that there is no 

longer the possibility that the 

Department’s order-wide likelihood 

determinations might be based on 

assumptions about likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy. The 

Department will make its order-wide 

likelihood determinations on the basis 

of the facts and information available on 

the record of the sunset review. 

Two commenters argue that 

amendment or withdrawal of the 

statutory provision (section 751(c)(4)(B) 

of the Act) found to be WTOinconsistent was required in order to 

implement the AB/panel findings. We 

disagree. By modifying its regulatory 

waiver provisions, the Department has 

eliminated the possibility that its orderwide likelihood determinations would 

be based on assumptions about 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62063 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping or a countervailable subsidy 

due to interested parties’ waiver of 

participation in sunset reviews. Section 

751(c)(4)(B) of the Act only mandates an 

affirmative company-specific likelihood 

finding as a consequence of a party 

electing to waive its participation in the 

sunset review. Thus, the modified 

regulatory waiver requirements result in 

elimination of any assumptions about 

likelihood because a party waiving 

participation would have already 

indicated to the Department that it was 

likely to dump or benefit from a 

countervailable subsidy if the order 

were revoked. 

Two commenters also noted that the 

regulations would not longer specify 

how the Department will address the 

situation where a producer/exporter 

does not participate in a sunset review. 

The commenters are correct in part. 

While it is the statute that provides for 

determinations on the basis of facts 

available where, inter alia, a party does 

not provide requested information 

(section 776 of the Act), there are 

specific provisions in the Department’s 

regulations concerning use of facts 

available in a sunset review (19 CFR 

351.308(f)). As a general matter, the 

Department will make its order-wide 

likelihood determination on the basis of 

the facts and information available on 

the record of the sunset review which 

may include, where appropriate, use of 

facts available as provided for in the 

statute and regulations. 

Section 351.309 

The Appellate Body upheld the 

panel’s finding that the operation of 

paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of 19 CFR 351.218 

was inconsistent with Article 6.2 in that 

it allegedly denies an interested party 

that is deemed to have waived its right 

to participate in a sunset review by 

submitting an incomplete substantive 

response the right to participate in a 

hearing. Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) does not 

explicitly address the issue of hearings; 

nor do the regulations preclude hearings 

in expedited sunset reviews resulting 

from the application of the waiver 

provisions. Nevertheless, in the interest 

of alleviating any perceived confusion 

with respect to participation in a 

hearing in an expedited sunset review, 

the Department is modifying paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) of 19 CFR 351.309 to clarify 

that the Secretary will specify a due 

date for case briefs in an expedited 

sunset review. Case briefs provide the 

basis for parties’ affirmative 

presentations at a hearing. In addition, 

as discussed above, for other reasons we 

have eliminated paragraph (d)(2)(iii) in 

its entirety. 

One commenter argued that providing 

for filing of case briefs in expedited 

reviews could eliminate the distinction 

between expedited and full sunset 

reviews. The commenter proposed, 

instead, that the regulations provide 

respondents with an opportunity to 

supplement their substantive responses 

to correct identified deficiencies. We 

have not adopted this suggestion. The 

central distinction between an 

expedited and full sunset review 

remains. In a full sunset review, the 

regulations provide that the Department 

will issue a preliminary determination 

and allow comments on that 

determination; there is no provision for 

issuance of a preliminary determination 

in an expedited sunset review. 

Clarifying the basis for parties’

participation in a public hearing in an 

expedited sunset review does not 

change this distinction. The commenter 

also suggested that if the Department 

permits the filing of case briefs in an 

expedited review, it should make a 

corresponding amendment to paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of 19 CFR 351.218. We 

agree and have eliminated certain 

language in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) 

that could be construed as inconsistent 

with permitting parties to file case briefs 

in expedited sunset reviews. 

Classification 

E.O. 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant under E.O. 12866. 

Administrative Procedures Act 

The Department finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) in order 

to complete requirements mandated by 

the World Trade Organization (‘‘WTO’’) 

Appellate Body by December 17, 2005. 

On December 17, 2004, the WTO 

Appellate Body (‘‘AB’’) issued its 

findings regarding the sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on Oil 

Country Tubular Goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from 

Argentina. The WTO-appointed 

arbitrator determined, with reference to 

the Appellate Body report, that the 

United States must bring its laws into 

compliance with the Antidumping 

Agreement and complete another sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on OCTG from Argentina not later than 

December 17, 2005. The Department 

was informed of this deadline date on 

June 7, 2005. On August 15, 2005 (70 FR 

47738), the Department published a 

proposed rule to solicit comments on 

proposed revisions to its regulations 

related to sunset reviews. In addition, 

the Department initiated consultations 

for 60 days with the relevant 

congressional committees in accordance 

with section 123 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act. After the publication of 

this final rule, the Department still must 

initiate the sunset review, provide 

interested parties with 30 days to 

submit their responses to the 

Department’s sunset questionnaire, 

analyze the responses, and make a final 

likelihood determination in the sunset 

review before December 17, 2005. Thus, 

in order to meet the WTO-mandated 

implementation date and to ensure that 

interested parties have an opportunity 

to participate fully in the sunset review, 

the Department finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness 

of the final rule and makes these 

regulations effective on October 31, 

2005, upon conclusion of the 60-day 

congressional consultation period 

required by the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for a failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. This final rule 

involves collection-of-information 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

The requirements have been approved 

by OMB under control numbers 0625–

0105 and 0625–0148. 

E.O. 12612 

This final rule does not contain 

federalism implications warranting the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this final rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for the certification 

was published in the proposed rule and 

is not repeated here. No comments were 

received regarding the economic impact 

of this action. As a result, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis was not prepared. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antidumping duties, 

Business and industry, Cheese, 

Confidential business information, 

Countervailing duties, Investigations, 

62064 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

■ For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 

351 is amended as follows: 

PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND 

COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 

Subpart B—Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Procedures 

■ 1. Section 351.218 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 

introductory text, (d)(2)(iv)(C), 

(e)(1)(ii)(B) introductory text, 

(e)(1)(ii)(B)(3), and (e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), and 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(2)(iii), as follows: 

§ 351.218 Sunset reviews under section 

751(c) of the Act. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Contents of statement of waiver. 

Every statement of waiver must include 

a statement indicating that the 

respondent interested party waives 

participation in the sunset review before 

the Department; a statement that the 

respondent interested party is likely to 

dump or benefit from a countervailable 

subsidy (as the case may be) if the order 

is revoked or the investigation is 

terminated; in the case of a foreign 

government in a CVD sunset review, a 

statement that the government is likely 

to provide a countervailable subsidy if 

the order is revoked or the investigation 

is terminated; and the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(C) Base the final results of review on 

the facts available in accordance with 

351.308(f). 

* * * * * 

(e) Conduct of sunset review—(1) 

* * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Failure of a foreign government to 

file a substantive response to a notice of 

initiation in a CVD sunset review. If a 

foreign government fails to file a 

complete substantive response to a 

notice of initiation in a CVD sunset 

review under paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this 

section or waives participation in a CVD 

sunset review under paragraph (d)(2)(i) 

of this section, the Secretary will: * * * 

(3) Base the final results of review on 

the facts available in accordance with 

351.308(f). 

(C) * * * 

(2) Normally will conduct an 

expedited sunset review and, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the notice of initiation, issue final 

results of review based on the facts 

available in accordance with 

§ 351.308(f) (see section 751(c)(3)(B) of 

the Act and § 351.221(c)(5)(ii)). 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Information and Argument 

■ 2. Section 351.309 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 351.309 Written argument. 

* * * * * 

(c) Case brief. (1) * * * 

(iii) For the final results of an 

expedited sunset review, expedited 

antidumping review, Article 8 violation 

review, Article 4/Article 7 review, or 

section 753 review, a date specified by 

the Secretary. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21468 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–05–127] 

RIN 1625–AA–09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Shark River (South Channel), NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast 

Guard District, has approved a 

temporary deviation from the 

regulations governing the operation of 

the Route 71 Bridge, at mile 0.8, across 

Shark River (South Channel), at Belmar, 

New Jersey. This deviation allows the 

drawbridge to provide vessel openings 

upon two hours advance notice each 

day from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 

p.m. to 10 p.m. beginning on Monday, 

October 31 until Thursday, November 3, 

2005, to facilitate emergency 

mechanical repairs. 

DATES: The deviation is effective from 8 

a.m. to 3 a.m. and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

from October 31 until November 3, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast 

Guard District, Federal Building, 1st 

Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, 

VA 23704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (757) 398–6222. Commander (obr), 

Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the 

public docket for this temporary 

deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 

Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, at (757) 398–6222. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 

71 Bridge, at mile 0.8 across Shark River 

(South Channel), a bascule-type 

drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in 

the closed position to vessels of 13 feet, 

at mean high water. 

The New Jersey Department of 

Transportation, the bridge owner, 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the operating regulations for the Route 

71 Bridge, set out in 33 CFR 117.751, to 

effect emergency repair and replacement 

of the span lock motor and gear box of 

the draw span. 

To facilitate the work, the Route 71 

Bridge will provide vessel openings of 

the draw span upon two hours advance 

notice each day from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. beginning on 

Monday, October 31, 2005 until and 

including Thursday, November 3, 2005. 

At all other times, the bridge will 

operate in accordance with 33 CFR 

117.751. 

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 caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth 

Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–21501 Filed 10–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P