67368 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

rule change is not a significant 

regulatory action. 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risk and Safety Risks) 

The Department of the Army has 

determined that according to the criteria 

defined in Executive Order 13045 that 

Executive Order does not apply. 

I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The Department of the Army has 

determined that according to the criteria 

defined in Executive Order 13132 that 

Executive Order does not apply because 

the rule change will not have a 

substantial 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. 

Carl W.S. Chun, 

Director, Army Board for Correction of 

Military Records. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 581 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Archives and Records, 

Military Personnel. 

■ For reasons stated in the preamble the 

Department of the Army amends part 

581 to read as follows: 

PART 581—PERSONNEL REVIEW 

BOARD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 581 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1552, 1553, 1554, 

3013, 3014, 3016; 38 U.S.C. 3103(a). 

■ 2. Amend § 581.3 by revising 

paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 581.3 Army Board for Correction of 

Military Records. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) If the ABCMR receives the request 

for reconsideration within 1 year of the 

ABCMR’s original decision and if the 

ABCMR has not previously 

reconsidered the matter, the ABCMR 

staff will review the request to 

determine if it contains evidence 

(including, but not limited to, any facts 

or arguments as to why relief should be 

granted) that was not in the record at the 

time of the ABCMR’s prior 

consideration. If new evidence has been 

submitted, the request will be submitted 

to the ABCMR for its determination of 

whether the new evidence is sufficient 

to demonstrate material error or 

injustice. If no new evidence is found, 

the ABCMR staff will return the 

application to the applicant without 

action. 

(ii) If the ABCMR receives a request 

for reconsideration more than 1 year 

after the ABCMR’s original decision or 

after the ABCMR has already considered 

one request for reconsideration, then the 

case will be returned without action and 

the applicant will be advised the next 

remedy is appeal to a court of 

appropriate jurisdiction. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–22094 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[USCG–2005–22853] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Upper Mississippi River, Ft. Madison, 

Burlington, and Dubuque, IA, and Rock 

Island Arsenal, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

temporarily revising the operating 

regulations for the Ft. Madison 

Drawbridge, mile 383.9, the Burlington 

RR Drawbridge, mile 403.1, the Illinois 

Central Railroad Drawbridge, mile 

579.9, and the Rock Island Arsenal 

Drawbridge, mile 482.9, all located 

along the Upper Mississippi River. The 

temporary revision established the 

winter operating schedules for these 

four drawbridges while still providing 

for the reasonable needs of navigation. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

December 15, 2005 through March 15, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [USCG–2005–

22853] 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 Mr. 

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 

Administrator, (314) 539–3900, 

extension 2378. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Andrea M. 

Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–0271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

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, which would incorporate a 

comment period before a final rule 

could be issued, is unnecessary. The 

closure of lock 19 (mile 364) by the 

Army Corps of Engineers will reduce 

the level of navigation on the waterway, 

making the opening of these 

drawbridges largely unnecessary. 

Background and Purpose 

The Rock Island Drawbridge is owned 

by the U.S. Government (U.S. Army, 

Rock Island Arsenal); the Ft. Madison 

and Burlington Railroad Drawbridges 

are owned by Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railway; the Illinois Central Railroad 

Drawbridge is owned by the Chicago, 

Central and Pacific Railroad. Each 

bridge owner wrote to the Coast Guard 

and requested the proposed revisions in 

order to conduct necessary maintenance 

work. These are typical requests that 

occur each winter. During the winter 

months, the Army Corps of Engineers 

will usually close one or more locks for 

repair and when the locks are closed, 

navigation ceases. The lock closures go 

from mid-Dec until early to mid-March. 

This lock closure presents bridge 

owners with an opportunity for 

conducting bridge repairs that would 

render the bridges inoperable. The Coast 

Guard generally requires the bridges to 

return to operation by the date when the 

Corps’ locks reopen. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule temporarily amends section 

117.671, allowing the Ft. Madison 

Drawbridge, mile 383.9, the Burlington 

RR Drawbridge, mile 403.1, and the 

Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, 

mile 579.9, to change from an open on 

demand schedule to one requiring at 

least 2 hours advance notice. It also 

allows the Rock Island Arsenal 

Drawbridge, mile 482.9, to remain in the 

closed-to-navigation position. It also 

adds temporary cross-references to 

section 117.671 under the listings for 

drawbridge regulations for Iowa and 

Illinois. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 67369 

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 

(DHS). 

This rule will not have a significant 

effect due to the fact that these 

drawbridge closures are coordinated 

with the closure of lock 19 (mile 364) 

by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Historically, the Coast Guard authorizes 

drawbridges to close during the winter 

season due to the reduced traffic caused 

by ice and lock closures. The closure of 

lock 19 prevents most towboat activity; 

the activity that remains can be 

accommodated with the advance notice 

provisions included in the temporary 

rule. 

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. 

It is unlikely that this rule will affect 

small entities due to the fact that these 

drawbridge closures are coordinated 

with the closure of lock 19 (mile 364) 

by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Historically, the Coast Guard authorizes 

drawbridges to close during the winter 

season due to the reduced traffic caused 

by ice and lock closures. The closure of 

lock 19 prevents most towboat activity; 

the activity that remains can be 

accommodated with the advance notice 

provisions included in the temporary 

rule. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Mr. Roger K. 

Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

(314) 539–3900, extension 2378. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

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. 

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 this 

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 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

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, 

67370 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 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 117.255 also issued 

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

Stat. 5039. 

■ 2. From December 15, 2005 until 

March 15, 2006, add temporary 

§ 117.T398 to read as follows: 

117.T398 Upper Mississippi River. 

See § 117.671, Upper Mississippi 

River, listed under Minnesota. 

■ 3. From December 15, 2005 until 

March 15, 2006, add temporary 

§ 117.T408 to read as follows: 

117.T408 Upper Mississippi River. 

See § 117.671, Upper Mississippi 

River, listed under Minnesota. 

■ 4. From December 15, 2005 until 

March 15, 2006, amend § 117.671 by 

adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

117.671 Upper Mississippi River. 

* * * * * 

(c) From December 15, 2005 until 

March 15, 2006, the draws of the Ft. 

Madison Drawbridge, mile 383.9, the 

Burlington Railroad Drawbridge, mile 

403.1, and the Illinois Central Railroad 

Drawbridge, mile 579.9, need not open 

unless at least 24 hours advance notice 

is given. 

(d) From December 15, 2005 until 

March 15, 2006, the draw of the Rock 

Island Arsenal Drawbridge, mile 482.9, 

need not open for the passage of vessels. 

Dated: November 1, 2005. 

Steve Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations & Administrative 

Law, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

United States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 05–22101 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 334 

Restricted Areas at Multiple Military 

Sites Within the State of Florida 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) is amending seven 

existing regulations to incorporate 

changes to the types of restriction, the 

area affected by the restriction, and/or 

the administration of six restricted areas 

and one danger zone. Additionally, the 

Corps is establishing two new restricted 

areas. The restricted areas and danger 

zone are located within the State of 

Florida. The amended regulations will 

enable the affected units of the U.S. 

Military to enhance safety and security 

around active military establishments. 

These regulations are necessary to 

safeguard military vessels and United 

States government facilities from 

sabotage and other subversive acts, 

accidents, or incidents of similar nature. 

These regulations are also necessary to 

protect the public from potentially 

hazardous conditions that may exist as 

a result of military use of the area. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, ATTN: CECW–CO, 441 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314–

1000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Olson, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Headquarters, Washington, 

DC at 202–761–4922, or Mr. Jon M. 

Griffin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Jacksonville District, Regulatory 

Division, at 904–232–1680. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to its authorities in Section 7 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 

266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the 

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 

Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is 

amending the regulations in 33 CFR part 

334 by modifying the area or restrictions 

at sections 334.560, 334.580, 334.610, 

334.760, 334.775, 334.778, and 334.780. 

Additionally, the Corps is establishing 

two new restricted areas at § 334.635 

and § 334.515. The modification to each 

existing restricted area and danger zone 

is described in the body of this notice 

along with a description of the two 

newly established restricted areas. The 

proposed rule was published in the 

March 25, 2005, issue of the Federal 

Register (70 FR 15247). 

These amendments to the regulations 

will allow the Commanding Office at 

each of the affected military units to 

restrict passage of persons, watercraft, 

and vessels at his or her discretion in 

the interest of National Security until 

such time he or she determines such 

restrictions may be terminated. 

In response to the proposed rule, two 

commenters raised concerns about the 

amendment of § 334.540, specifically 

the potential loss of public access to 

areas presently open to public 

recreational fishing. These issues are 

still being considered and the proposed 

changes to § 334.540 are not included in 

this final rule. Therefore, the restricted 

area at § 334.550 will not be 

disestablished, because we proposed to 

remove that section only if the proposed 

changes to § 334.540 were adopted. 

Procedural Requirements 

a. Review Under Executive Order 

12866. These rules are issued with 

respect to a military function of the 

United States and the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866 do not apply. 

b. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. These rules have been 

reviewed under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Public Law 96–354; 5 

U.S.C. 601) which requires the 

preparation of a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any regulation that will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

(i.e., small businesses and small 

Governments). We have concluded that 

the proposed modifications to the 

existing restricted areas and danger zone 

and the establishment of two new 

restricted areas would have practically 

no economic impact on the public, and 

would create no anticipated 

navigational hazard or interference with 

existing waterway traffic. Accordingly, 

we certify that these rules will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

c. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. We have 

concluded, based on the minor nature of 

the changes, that these amendments to 

the danger zone and restricted areas will 

not be a major Federal action having a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment, and preparation of 

an environmental impact statement is 

not required. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Act. These 

rules do not impose an enforceable duty 

among the private sector and, therefore, 

is not a Federal private sector mandate 

and is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104–4, 

109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). We 

have also found under Section 203 of