Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6345

Example 1: A community takes up a 

collection to buy you a specially equipped 

van, which is your only vehicle. The value 

of this gift is not income because the van 

does not provide you with food or shelter 

and will become an excluded nonliquid 

resource under § 416.1218 in the month 

following the month of receipt.

* * * * *

§§416.1104, 416.1121, 416.1124, 416.1130, 

416.1133, 416.1140, 416.1142, 416.1144, 

416.1145, 416.1147, 416.1148, 416.1149, 

416.1157 [Amended]

■ 4. Remove the words ‘‘food, clothing, 

or shelter’’ and add, in their place, the 

words ‘‘food or shelter’’ in the following 

sections: 

a. Section 416.1104; 

b. Section 416.1121(b) and (h); 

c. Section 416.1124(c)(3); 

d. Section 416.1130(a) and (b); 

e. Section 416.1133(a); 

f. Section 416.1140(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), 

(a)(2)(ii), (b)(1), and (b)(2); 

g. Section 416.1142(b); 

h. Section 416.1144(b)(2); 

i. Section 416.1145; 

j. Section 416.1147(c) and (d)(1); 

k. Section 416.1148(b)(1) and (b)(2); 

l. Section 416.1149(c)(1)(i) and 

(c)(1)(ii); and 

m. Section 416.1157(b).

Subpart L—[Amended]

■ 5. The authority citation for subpart L 

of part 416 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1602, 1611, 

1612, 1613, 1614(f), 1621, and 1631 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 

1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, 

and 1383); sec. 211, Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat. 

154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note).

■ 6. Section 416.1210 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 416.1210 Exclusions from resources; 

general.

* * * * *

(b) Household goods and personal 

effects as defined in § 416.1216; 

(c) An automobile, if used for 

transportation, as provided in 

§ 416.1218;

* * * * *

■ 7. Section 416.1216 is revised to read 

as follows:

§ 416.1216 Exclusion of household goods 

and personal effects. 

(a) Household goods. (1) We do not 

count household goods as a resource to 

an individual (and spouse, if any) if 

they are: 

(i) Items of personal property, found 

in or near the home, that are used on a 

regular basis; or 

(ii) Items needed by the householder 

for maintenance, use and occupancy of 

the premises as a home. 

(2) Such items include but are not 

limited to: Furniture, appliances, 

electronic equipment such as personal 

computers and television sets, carpets, 

cooking and eating utensils, and dishes. 

(b) Personal effects. (1) We do not 

count personal effects as resources to an 

individual (and spouse, if any) if they 

are: 

(i) Items of personal property 

ordinarily worn or carried by the 

individual; or 

(ii) Articles otherwise having an 

intimate relation to the individual. 

(2) Such items include but are not 

limited to: Personal jewelry including 

wedding and engagement rings, 

personal care items, prosthetic devices, 

and educational or recreational items 

such as books or musical instruments. 

We also do not count as resources items 

of cultural or religious significance to an 

individual and items required because 

of an individual’s impairment. 

However, we do count items that were 

acquired or are held for their value or 

as an investment because we do not 

consider these to be personal effects. 

Such items can include but are not 

limited to: Gems, jewelry that is not 

worn or held for family significance, or 

collectibles. Such items will be subject 

to the limits in § 416.1205.

■ 8. Section 416.1218 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1), removing 

paragraph (b)(2), redesignating 

paragraph (b)(3) as (b)(2) and revising it, 

and removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 416.1218 Exclusion of the Automobile.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) Total exclusion. One automobile is 

totally excluded regardless of value if it 

is used for transportation for the 

individual or a member of the 

individual’s household. 

(2) Other automobiles. Any other 

automobiles are considered to be 

nonliquid resources. Your equity in the 

other automobiles is counted as a 

resource. (See § 416.1201(c).)

[FR Doc. 05–2248 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–04–179] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

temporarily changing the regulations 

that govern the operation of the S.R. 44 

bridge over Mantua Creek, at mile 1.7, 

in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The bridge 

will be closed to navigation from 8 a.m. 

on September 12, 2005, through 6 p.m. 

on December 9, 2005. The extensive 

structural, mechanical, and electrical 

repairs and improvements necessitate 

this closure.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. 

on September 12, 2005, through 6 p.m. 

on December 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket CGD05–04–179 and 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 

Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anton Allen, Bridge Management 

Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at 

(757) 398–6227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

On October 12, 2004, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, 

NJ’’ in the Federal Register (69 FR 

60595). We received no letters 

commenting on the proposed rule. No 

public meeting was requested, and none 

was held. 

Background and Purpose 

The New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) owns and 

operates the S.R. 44 Bridge over Mantua 

Creek in Paulsboro, NJ. The current 

regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.729 

require the draw to open on signal from 

March 1 through November 30 from 7 

a.m. to 11 p.m., and shall open on signal 

6346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

at all other times upon four hours 

notice. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff, a design 

consultant, on behalf of NJDOT 

requested a temporary change to the 

existing regulations for the S.R. 44 

Bridge over Mantua Creek to facilitate 

necessary repairs. The repairs consist of 

structural rehabilitation and various 

mechanical, electrical repairs and 

improvements. To facilitate repairs, the 

vertical lift span must be closed to 

vessel traffic from 8 a.m. on September 

12, 2005, through 6 p.m. on December 

9, 2005. 

The Coast Guard has reviewed bridge 

opening data provided by the NJDOT. 

The data, from years 2000 to 2002, 

shows a substantial decrease in the 

numbers of bridge openings and vessel 

traffic transiting the area after the Labor 

Day weekend. Based on the data 

provided, the proposed closure dates 

will have minimal impact on vessel 

traffic. 

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.

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. We established this 

conclusion based on historical data, and 

on the fact that the closure dates 

support minimal impact due to the 

reduced number of vessels requiring 

transit through the bridge. 

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 would 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 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

No assistance was requested from any 

small entity. 

Collection of Information 

This rule would call 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 would 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 

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.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 (32)(e) of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6347

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 117.255 also issued 

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

Stat. 5039.

■ 2. Section 117.729 is temporarily 

amended from 8 a.m. on September 12, 

2005, through 6 p.m. on December 9, 

2005 by suspending paragraph (b) and 

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 117.729 Mantua Creek.

* * * * *

(c) From 8 a.m. on September 12, 

2005, through 6 p.m. on December 9, 

2005, the S.R. 44 Bridge, mile 1.7, at 

Paulsboro, may remain closed to 

navigation.

Dated: January 25, 2005. 

Sally Brice-O’Hara, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 05–2233 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD7–04–153] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area Removal; 

Brunswick, GA, Turtle River, in the 

Vicinity of the Sidney Lanier Bridge

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing 

the regulated navigation area (RNA) in 

Brunswick, Georgia in the Turtle River 

in the vicinity of the Sidney Lanier 

Bridge. Due to the construction of the 

new Sidney Lanier Bridge and the 

removal of the old bridge structures, the 

maneuvers required by the RNA are no 

longer necessary to prevent allisions 

with the old bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to USCG Marine 

Safety Office Savannah, 100 W. 

Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 1017, JGL 

Federal Building, Savannah, GA 31401. 

USCG Marine Safety Office Savannah 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

USCG Marine Safety Office Savannah 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT 

Aloysious Zealy, Planning Officer, MSO 

Savannah at 912–652–4353 ext. 240.

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) and 

(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good 

cause exists for not publishing a NPRM 

and for making this regulation effective 

less than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. Due to the 

construction of the new Sidney Lanier 

Bridge, the widening of the channel, 

and the removal of the old bridge 

structure, the maneuver required by the 

current RNA is no longer necessary. 

Because the old Sidney Lanier Bridge no 

longer exists, an NPRM to remove the 

RNA is unnecessary. Similarly, it is 

unnecessary to delay the effective date 

of the regulation beyond the date of 

publication on the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Regulated Navigation Area at 33 

CFR 165.735 Brunswick, Georgia, Turtle 

River, Vicinity of Sidney Lanier Bridge 

was introduced in 1987 to improve 

navigational safety after the old Sidney 

Lanier Bridge had suffered allisions in 

1972 and 1987. The close proximity of 

the bridge to the turn from the East 

River onto the Turtle River, in 

conjunction with the heavy current and 

narrow channel width, provided 

insufficient time for many vessels 

departing the East River, outbound for 

sea under the old Sydney Lanier Bridge, 

to properly shape up for safe transit. 

The RNA requires every vessel over 500 

GRT departing the Port of Brunswick for 

sea to depart only from the Turtle River, 

except during flood tide. Vessels over 

500 GRT departing for sea southbound 

down the East River negotiate a 

129§ starboard turn, westward onto the 

Turtle River, transit up river to the 

turning basin to negotiate a 180° turn, 

and then transit down bound on the 

Turtle River through what was 

previously a 200′ wide restricted 

channel. 

Due to the construction of the new 

Sidney Lanier Bridge and widening of 

the channel, the maneuver required by 

the current RNA is no longer necessary. 

The current navigation requirements of 

33 CFR 165.735 pose a greater risk of a 

vessel casualty due to the now 

unnecessary complex maneuvering. The 

rule removes the maneuvers required by 

the current RNA and will reduce the 

transit time of vessels bound for sea 

from the East River. Due to the removal 

of the old bridge structures, no other 

navigational or safety requirements are 

necessary.

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 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. This rule removes 

navigation restrictions currently 

imposed on mariners and make transit 

easier and quicker. The anticipated 

beneficial result forms the basis for the 

determination that the economic impact 

will be minimal. 

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. 

The current Regulated Navigation Area 

imposes restrictions on vessels 

transiting the area. The mariners who 

pilot the affected vessels have requested 

this rule. The impact of this rule will be 

a beneficial one as it removes