Notice and Comment

Section 101(g) of Division B of the 2004 Act requires that these regulations be promulgated without regard to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 or the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804), relating to notice and comment rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking. These regulations are thus issued as final.

This final rule has been determined to be economically significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A Cost-Benefit Analysis was completed and is summarized following the Background section.

The title and number of the Federal assistance program, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this final rule applies are: 10.073—Crop Disaster Program.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor CCC are required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject matter of this rule.

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and regulations of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR part 799. An Environmental Evaluation was completed and it was determined that this action does not have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the human environment and, therefore, the rule is categorically excluded from further review under NEPA. A copy of the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review upon request.

The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12778. This final rule preempts State laws that are inconsistent with its provisions, but the rule is not retroactive. Before any judicial action may be brought concerning this rule, all administrative remedies must be exhausted.

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) does not apply to this rule because neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor CCC are required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject matter of this rule. Also, the rule imposes no mandates as defined in UMRA.

Section 101(g) of Division B of the 2004 Act requires that the Secretary use the authority in section 808 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121 (SBREFA), which allows an agency to forgo SBREFA's usual 60-day Congressional Review delay of the effective date of a major regulation if the agency finds that there is a good cause to do so. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon the date of filing for public inspection by the Office of the Federal Register.

Section 101(g) of Division B the 2004 Act requires that these regulations be promulgated and the activities under this rule be administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act. This means that the information to be collected from the public to implement these provisions and the burden, in time and money, the collection of the information would have on the public does not have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget or be subject to the normal requirement for a 60-day public comment period.

CCC is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies in general, and the FSA in particular, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. Because of the need to publish these regulations quickly, the forms and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this rule are not yet fully implemented in a way that would allow the public to conduct business with CCC electronically. Accordingly, at this time, all forms required to be submitted under this rule may be submitted to CCC by mail or FAX.

The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

The Agencies are jointly issuing final Guidance that interprets the requirements of section 501(b) of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 6801, and the Security Guidelines 2 to include the development and implementation of a response program to address unauthorized access to, or use of customer information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer. The Guidance describes the appropriate elements of a financial institution's response program, including customer notification procedures.

Section 501(b) required the Agencies to establish standards for financial institutions relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to: (1) Ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information; (2) protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information; and (3) protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.

On February 1, 2001, the Agencies issued the Security Guidelines as required by section 501(b) (66 FR 8616). Among other things, the Security Guidelines direct financial institutions to: (1) Identify reasonably foreseeable internal and external threats that could result in unauthorized disclosure, misuse, alteration, or destruction of customer information or customer information systems; (2) assess the likelihood and potential damage of these threats, taking into consideration the sensitivity of customer information; and (3) assess the sufficiency of policies, procedures, customer information systems, and other arrangements in place to control risks.3

To address the need for additional interpretive guidance regarding section 501(b) and the Security Guidelines, on August 12, 2003, the Agencies published proposed Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice (proposed Guidance) in the Federal Register (68 FR 47954). This proposed Guidance made clear that the Agencies expect a financial institution's information security program, required under the Security Guidelines, to include a response program.

The Agencies were interested in the public's views on the proposed Guidance and accordingly published it for comment.4 The Agencies have used these comments to assess the impact of the proposed Guidance, and to address the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Agencies invited comment on all aspects of the proposed Guidance and collectively received 65 comments on the proposed Guidance. In some instances, several commenters joined in filing a single comment. The commenters included 10 bank holding companies, eight financial institution trade associations, 25 financial institutions (including three Federal Reserve Banks), five consumer groups, three payment systems, three software companies, three non-financial institution business associations, three service providers, two credit unions, a member of Congress, a state office, a compliance officer, a security and risk consultant, a trademark protection service, and a trade association representing consumer reporting agencies.

Commenters generally agreed that financial institutions should have response programs. Indeed, many financial institutions said that they have such programs in place. Comments from consumer groups and the Congressman commended the Agencies for providing guidance on response programs and customer notification. However, most industry commenters thought that the proposed Guidance was too prescriptive. These commenters stated that the proposed approach would stifle innovation and retard the effective evolution of response programs. Industry commenters raised concerns that the proposed Guidance would not permit a financial institution to assess different situations from its own business perspective, specific to its size, operational and system structure, and risk tolerances. These industry commenters suggested modifying the proposed Guidance to give financial institutions greater discretion to determine how to respond to incidents of unauthorized access to or use of customer information.

Two commenters also requested that the Agencies include a transition period allowing adequate time for financial institutions to implement the final Guidance. Some commenters asked for a transition period only for the aspects of the final Guidance that address service provider arrangements.

The final Guidance states that every financial institution should develop and implement a response program designed to address incidents of unauthorized access to customer information maintained by the institution or its service provider. The final Guidance provides each financial institution with greater flexibility to design a risk-based response program tailored to the size, complexity and nature of its operations.

The final Guidance continues to highlight customer notice as a key feature of an institution's response program. However, in response to the comments received, the final Guidance modifies the standard describing when notice should be given and provides for a delay at the request of law enforcement. It also modifies which customers should be given notice, what a notice should contain, and how it should be delivered.

A more detailed discussion of the final Guidance and the manner in which it incorporates comments the Agencies received follows.

Section I of the proposed Guidance described the legal authority for the Agencies' position that every financial institution should have a response program that includes measures to protect customer information maintained by the institution or its service providers. The proposed Guidance also stated that the Agencies expect customer notification to be a component of the response program.

One commenter questioned the Agencies' legal authority to issue the proposed Guidance. This commenter asserted that section 501(b) only authorizes the Agencies to establish standards requiring financial institutions to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of customer information and to protect that information from unauthorized access, but does not authorize standards that would require a response to incidents where the security of customer information actually has been breached.

The final Guidance interprets those provisions of the Security Guidelines issued under the authority of section 501(b)(3) of the GLBA, which states specifically that the standards to be established by the Agencies must include various safeguards to protect against not only “unauthorized access to,” but also the “use of,” customer information that could result in “substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.” This language authorizes standards that include response programs to address incidents of unauthorized access to customer information. A response program is the principal means for a financial institution to protect against unauthorized “use” of customer information that could lead to “substantial harm or inconvenience” to the institution's customer. For example, customer notification is an important tool that enables a customer to take steps to prevent identity theft, such as by arranging to have a fraud alert placed in his or her credit file. Accordingly, when evaluating the adequacy of an institution's information security program required by the Security Guidelines, the Agencies will consider whether the institution has developed and implemented a response program as described in the final Guidance.

In a number of places throughout the proposed Guidance, the Agencies referenced definitions in the Security Guidelines. However, the Agencies did not specifically address the scope of the proposed Guidance. Commenters had questions and suggestions regarding the scope of the proposed Guidance and the meaning of terms used.

Some commenters had questions about the entities and information covered by the proposed Guidance. One commenter suggested that the Agencies clarify that foreign offices, branches, and affiliates of United States banks are not subject to the final Guidance. Some commenters recommended that the Agencies clarify that the final Guidance applies only to unauthorized access to sensitive information within the control of the financial institution. One commenter thought that the final Guidance should be broad and cover frauds committed against bank customers through the Internet, such as through the misuse of online corporate identities to defraud online banking customers through fake web sites (commonly known as “phishing”). Several commenters requested confirmation in the final Guidance that it applies to consumer accounts and not to business and other commercial accounts.

For greater clarity, the Agencies have revised the Background section of the final Guidance to state that the scope and definitions of terms used in the Guidance are identical to those in section 501(b) of the GLBA and the Security Guidelines which largely cross-reference definitions used in the Agencies' Privacy Rules.5 Therefore, consistent with section 501(b) and the Security Guidelines, this final Guidance applies to the entities enumerated in section 505(a) of the GLBA.6 This final Guidance does not apply to a financial institution's foreign offices, branches, or affiliates. However, a financial institution subject to the Security Guidelines is responsible for the security of its customer information, whether the information is maintained within or outside of the United States, such as by a service provider located outside of the United States.

This final Guidance also applies to “customer information,” meaning any record containing “nonpublic personal information” (as that term is defined in § __.3(n) of the Agencies' Privacy Rules) about a financial institution's customer, whether in paper, electronic, or other form, that is maintained by or on behalf of the institution.7 Consequently, the final Guidance applies only to information that is within the control of the institution and its service providers, and would not apply to information directly disclosed by a customer to a third party, for example, through a fraudulent Web site.

Moreover, this final Guidance does not apply to information involving business or commercial accounts. Instead, the final Guidance applies to nonpublic personal information about a “customer” within the meaning of the Security Guidelines, namely, a consumer who obtains a financial product or service from a financial institution to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and who has a continuing relationship with the institution.8

Several commenters requested that the Agencies explain how the final Guidance interacts with additional and possibly conflicting state law requirements. Most of these commenters urged that the final Guidance expressly preempt state law. By contrast, one commenter asked the Agencies to clarify that a financial institution must also comply with additional state law requirements. In addition, some commenters asked that the final Guidance provide a safe harbor defense against class action suits. They suggested that the safe harbor should cover any financial institution that takes reasonable steps that regulators require to protect customer information, but, nonetheless, experiences an event beyond its control that leads to the disclosure of customer information.

These issues do not fall within the scope of this final Guidance. The extent to which section 501(b) of the GLBA, the Security Guidelines, and any related Agency interpretations, such as this final Guidance, preempt state law is governed by Federal law, including the procedures set forth in section 507 of GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 6807.9 Moreover, there is nothing in Title V of the GLBA that authorizes the Agencies to provide institutions with a safe harbor defense. Therefore, the final Guidance does not address these issues.

For the reasons described earlier, the Background section is adopted essentially as proposed, except that the latter part of the paragraph on “Service Providers” and the entire paragraph on “Response Programs” are incorporated into the introductory discussion of section II. The Agencies believe that the Background section is now clearer, as it focuses solely on the statutory and regulatory framework upon which the final Guidance is based. Comments and changes with respect to the paragraphs that were relocated are discussed in the next section.

The Security Guidelines enumerate a number of security measures that each financial institution must consider and adopt, if appropriate, to control risks stemming from reasonably foreseeable internal and external threats to an institution's customer information.10 The introductory paragraph of section II of the final Guidance specifically states that a financial institution should implement those security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to or use of customer information, such as by placing access controls on customer information systems and conducting background checks for employees 11 who are authorized to access customer information. The introductory paragraph also states that every financial institution should develop and implement security measures designed to address incidents of unauthorized access to customer information that occur despite measures to prevent security breaches.

The measures enumerated in the Security Guidelines include “response programs that specify actions to be taken when the bank suspects or detects that unauthorized individuals have gained access to customer information systems, including appropriate reports to regulatory and law enforcement agencies.”12 Prompt action by both the institution and the customer following the unauthorized access to customer information is crucial to limit identity theft. As a result, every financial institution should develop and implement a response program appropriate to the size and complexity of the institution and the nature and scope of its activities, designed to address incidents of unauthorized access to customer information.

The introductory language in section II of the final Guidance states that a response program should be a key part of an institution's information security program. It also emphasizes that a financial institution's response program should be risk-based and describes the components of a response program in a less prescriptive manner.

The Background section of the proposed Guidance elaborated on the specific provisions that a financial institution's contracts with its service providers should contain. The proposed Guidance stated that a financial institution's contract with its service provider should require the service provider to disclose fully to the institution information related to any breach in security resulting in an unauthorized intrusion into the institution's customer information systems maintained by the service provider. It stated that this disclosure would permit an institution to expeditiously implement its response program.

Several commenters on the proposed Guidance agreed that a financial institution's contracts with its service providers should require the service provider to disclose fully to the institution information related to any breach in security resulting in an unauthorized intrusion into the institution's customer information systems maintained by the service provider. However, many commenters suggested modifications to this section.

The discussion of this aspect of a financial institution's contracts with its service providers is in section II of the final Guidance. It has been revised as follows in response to the comments received.

The Agencies received a number of comments regarding the timing of a service provider's notice to a financial institution. One commenter suggested requiring service providers to report incidents of unauthorized access to financial institutions within 24 hours after discovery of the incident.

In response to comments on the timing of a service provider's notice to a financial institution, the final Guidance adds that a financial institution's contract with its service provider should require the service provider to take appropriate action to address incidents of unauthorized access to the institution's customer information, including by notifying the institution as soon as possible of any such incident, to enable the institution to expeditiously implement its response program. The Agencies determined that requiring notice within 24 hours of an incident may not be practicable or appropriate in every situation, particularly where, for example, it takes a service provider time to investigate a breach in security. Therefore, the final Guidance does not specify a number of hours or days by which the service provider must give notice to the financial institution.

Some commenters expressed concerns that they would have to rewrite their contracts with service providers to require the disclosure described in this provision. These commenters asked the Agencies to grandfather existing contracts and to apply this provision only prospectively to new contracts. Many commenters also suggested that the final Guidance contain a transition period to permit financial institutions to modify their existing contracts.

The Agencies have decided not to grandfather existing contracts or to add a transition period to the final Guidance because, as stated in the proposed Guidance, this disclosure provision is consistent with the obligations in the Security Guidelines that relate to service provider arrangements and with existing guidance on this topic previously issued by the Agencies.13 In order to ensure the safeguarding of customer information, financial institutions that use service providers likely have already arranged to receive notification from the service providers when customer information is accessed in an unauthorized manner. In light of the comments received, however, the Agencies recognize that there are institutions that have not formally included such a disclosure requirement in their contracts. Where this is the case, the institution should exercise its best efforts to add a disclosure requirement to its contracts and any new contracts should include such a provision.

Thus, the final Guidance adopts the discussion on service provider arrangements largely as proposed. To eliminate any ambiguity regarding the application of this section to foreign-based service providers, however, the final Guidance now makes clear that a covered financial institution 14 should be capable of addressing incidents of unauthorized access to customer information in customer information systems maintained by its domestic and foreign service providers.15

On January 21, 2005, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E4 airspace Cocoa Beach Patrick AFB, FL, (70 FR 3155). This action provides adequate Class E4 airspace for IFR operations at Cocoa Beach Patrick AFB. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D airspace area are published in Paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class E4 airspace and at Cocoa Beach Patrick AFB, FL.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

FDA is increasing the fees provided for in the agency's regulations for certifying color additives. This modification is necessary because of a general increase in all costs of operating the certification program.

The fee schedule for color additive certification is designed to cover all the costs involved in certifying batches of color additives. This includes both the cost of specific tests required by the regulations and the general costs associated with the certification program, such as costs of accounting, reviewing data, issuing certificates, and conducting research and establishment inspections.

Section 721(e) of the act (21 U.S.C. 379(e)) requires that fees necessary to provide, maintain, and equip an adequate color additive certification program be specified in agency regulations. The current fee schedule specified in the regulations became effective in 1994. Since 1994, the costs of the certification program significantly increased as a result of escalating staff payroll, rent and facility charges, as well as general operational expenses including equipment.

As is evidenced by the increased costs incurred since 1994, the current fee schedule is insufficient to provide, equip, and maintain an adequate certification service. Therefore, an immediate increase is necessary. All cost estimates are described in the “2003 Color Certification Fee Study.” A copy of this document is on file at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES).

The agency is issuing this amendment as an interim final rule effective (see DATES). The establishment of fees necessary to provide, equip, and maintain an adequate certification service for colors has been mandated by Congress under section 721(e) of the act. As certification services are provided to industry directly by FDA, the setting of a fee schedule to pay for these services is a matter particularly within the purview and expertise of the agency. The fees established by this regulation have been based on cost accounting methods using data compiled by the agency. Increasing the fees by $0.05 per pound will ensure the viability of the certification program and offset the increased costs of maintaining this program. The fee for straight colors including lakes will be $0.35 per pound (a $0.05 per pound increase) with a minimum fee of $224. There are similar increases in fees for repacks of certified color additives and color additive mixtures.

FDA has examined the impacts of the interim final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandate Reforms Flexibility Act (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this interim final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. In addition, the interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so is not subject to review under the Executive order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. The entire cost of this fee increase would be approximately $849,626 per year and would be distributed amongst approximately 23 companies who would pay an increased fee that is proportional to the number of pounds of color that they certify. The great majority of these costs will be borne by a few firms that have a dominate share of the color certification market. These firms that have the largest shares of the market would pay most of these fees. In addition, by the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, all of the affected manufacturers of color additives are considered large. Thus, the agency certifies that the interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $115 million, using the most current (2003) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.22(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 21 CFR 10.40(e), FDA finds that providing for notice and public comment before the establishment of these fees, and for revising the basis on which these fees are calculated, is contrary to the public interest. It is necessary to implement the fee increase as soon as possible to preserve adequate funds for the program. A delay could result in the fund being exhausted before the end of the fiscal year. The agency believes, however, that it is appropriate to invite and consider public comments on these requirements.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic copies or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 17, 2003 (68 FR 59794), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 3A4749) had been filed by T&R Chemicals, Inc., c/o The Environ Health Sciences Institute, 4350 North Fairfax Dr., suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in part 172 (21 CFR part 172) to provide for the safe use of GEGR to adjust the density of citrus oils used in the preparation of beverages.

The proposed additive is intended to substitute for glycerol ester of wood rosin (GEWR). GEWR is currently permitted under § 172.735 for use in adjusting the density of citrus oils used in the preparation of beverages at a level not to exceed 100 parts per million (ppm) of the finished beverage. GEGR would be used at the same level as GEWR. In evaluating this petition, the agency reviewed data and information concerning: (1) The chemical composition of GEGR in comparison with that of GEWR, (2) the process used to manufacture GEGR, (3) physicochemical properties of GEGR compared to those of GEWR, (4) conformance of GEGR with the specifications in § 172.735 for GEWR, (5) the functional equivalence of GEGR to GEWR, and (6) relevant safety information.

Based on its evaluation, the agency has determined that GEGR is chemically similar to GEWR, such that any increase in the estimated daily intake (EDI) of the individual resin acids and resin acid esters that are the major components of both GEGR and GEWR from the petitioned use of GEGR would be insignificant and of no toxicological concern. The agency concludes that the petitioned use of GEGR as a substitute for GEWR to adjust the density of citrus oils used in the preparation of beverages at a level not to exceed 100 ppm of the finished beverage is safe, the additive will achieve its intended technical effect, and therefore, § 172.735 should be amended as set forth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.

During the course of FDA's evaluation of FAP 3A4749, the agency received one comment on the petition. This comment objects to the petitioner's claim that GEGR and GEWR are chemically equivalent. The comment points to purported differences in raw material sourcing and processing, compositional differences and variation in gum rosin, and differences occurring during the esterification process due to variations in the resin acid content. The comment also challenges the analytical methodology (i.e., saponification followed by gas chromatographic analysis) used by the petitioner in comparing GEGR and GEWR. The comment further objects to the petitioner's reliance on safety data which support the use of GEWR as the basis for establishing the safety of GEGR, on the grounds that such use of unpublished information furnished previously to FDA by another person was not authorized as required by § 171.1(b).

While FDA agrees that there are differences in raw material sourcing and processing for GEGR and GEWR, FDA has concluded that the compositions of these two substances are so similar that any differences are not of toxicological concern for the petitioned use. FDA also agrees there will be variability in the composition of the rosins depending on the source and even from the same source due to differences in climate and soil conditions (Ref. 1). However, this natural variability does not result in a qualitatively different composition of the rosin but rather a typical range of values for the individual components of the rosin. Because of source variability and different climates and soils, the composition of GEGR will vary from batch to batch, although its general composition will fall within a typical range. The composition of GEWR will vary in an analogous manner. Furthermore, this variability in the rosin composition does not result in a significant difference in the EDI for the individual resin acid components of GEGR and GEWR for the conditions of use. In addition, GEWR is characterized by its physical properties, which are specified in § 172.735. GEGR will have to conform to these same specifications.

As stated previously in this document, the comment also challenges the analytical methodology (i.e., saponification followed by gas chromatographic analysis) used by the petitioner in comparing GEGR and GEWR. The comment claims that this technique is inappropriate because it can induce isomerization of the resin acids, thereby changing the composition compared to the starting rosin. No literature references or data were provided to support this statement. In addition, the procedure used by the petitioner included a step to decrease the amount of isomerization. The petitioner also used other appropriate analytical techniques (e.g., infrared spectroscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) to compare GEGR and GEWR. Therefore, the agency concludes that data from these techniques, as well as the data from the gas chromatographic analyses, adequately demonstrate that GEGR and GEWR are chemically similar.

Because the agency has determined that GEGR and GEWR are similar with respect to the identity of their chemical components and that any difference in the ranges for the components of GEGR and GEWR are not significantly different and would be of no toxicological concern, there is no need for toxicological testing of GEGR to demonstrate that the petitioned use is safe.

Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp., 1095 Morris Ave., Union, NJ 07083, filed a supplement to NADA 38-233 for RALGRO (zeranol), a subcutaneous implant used in cattle and in sheep for improved feed efficiency and/or increased rate of weight gain. The supplemental NADA provides for the establishment of a tolerance for residues of zeranol in edible tissues of sheep. Accordingly, the analytical method for detecting residues of zeranol in uncooked edible tissues of sheep is being removed from part 556 (21 CFR part 556). The supplemental application is approved as of March 4, 2005, and the regulations are amended in § 556.760 to reflect the approval.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

The authority to issue this rule is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for “Indian judges.” See Tillett v. Hodel, 730 F. Supp., 381 (W.D. Okla. 1990), aff'd 931 F.2d 636 (10th Cir. 1991), United States v. Clapox, 13 Sawy. 349, 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888). This rule is published in the exercise of the rulemaking authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs in the Departmental Manual at 209 DM 8.1.

The territorial jurisdiction is extended to the land described in this document. The tract of land located in Nevada, within which the Winnemucca Indian Tribe is located, and more particularly described as:

(1) That 160 acres set aside by Executive Order of June 18, 1917, described as the NE1/4 of Section 32, Township 36 N., Range 38 E., M.D.M.;

(2) That 160 acres withdrawn by Executive Order of February 8, 1918, described as the SE1/4 of Section 32, Township 36 N., Range 38 E., M.D.M.; and

(3) That 20 acres acquired by the Acts of May 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 618) and May 29, 1928 (45 Stat 899) and described as N1/2, NE1/4, Section 29, Township 36 N., Range 38 E., M.D.M.

In addition, the territorial jurisdiction is extended to any lands hereafter acquired by or for the Colony. A provisional Court of Indian Offenses must be established for the Winnemucca Indian Tribe to protect the lives, persons, and property of people residing at and attending or visiting the Winnemucca Reservation and Colony, until they establish a tribal court in accordance with 25 CFR 11.100(c). This court shall function for a period not to exceed 2 years.

Judges of the Court of Indian Offenses shall be authorized to exercise all authority provided under 25 CFR part 11, including: Subpart D—Criminal Offenses; Subpart H—Appellate Proceedings; Subpart J—Juvenile Offender Procedure; issuance of arrest and search warrants pursuant to 25 CFR 11.302 and 11.305 and the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. 2803(2) (1998). Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have already set up a provisional Court of Indian Offenses pursuant to 25 CFR 11.100(a) for the Western Region to address this law enforcement need. This rule merely affirms the legitimacy of the establishment of this court.

This final rule will not authorize judges to exercise the following authority under 25 CFR part 11: Subpart E—Civil Actions; Subpart F—Domestic Relations; Subpart G—Probate Proceedings; Subpart I—Children's Court; and Subpart K—Minor-in-Need-of-Care Procedure.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply because of the good cause exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), which allows the agency to suspend the notice and public procedure when the agency finds for good cause that those requirements are impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This amendment will establish a provisional Court of Indian Offenses for the Winnemucca Indian Tribe of Winnemucca, Nevada, on land that was placed in trust for the benefit of the Winnemucca Indian Tribe. If this provisional court is not established, there is a high potential risk to public safety and a further risk of significant financial liability to the Federal Government from a lawsuit for failure to execute diligently its trust responsibility and provide adequate law enforcement on trust land. Delaying this rule to solicit public comment through the proposed rulemaking process would thus be contrary to the public interest. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement Services provides Law Enforcement Services to the Winnemucca Indian Tribe and an increase in visitors to the Winnemucca Reservation and Colony is imminent. For these reasons, an immediate effective date is in the public interest and in the interest of the Winnemucca Tribe. Accordingly, this amendment is issued as a final rule effective immediately.

We invite comments on any aspect of this rule and we will revise the rule if comments warrant. Send comments on this rule to the address in the ADDRESSES section.

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action. OMB makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.

(a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses is estimated to cost less than $200,000 annually to operate. The cost associated with the operation of this court will be with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Winnemucca Tribe.

(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. The Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs has the sole responsibility and authority to establish Courts of Indian Offenses on Indian reservations.

(c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses will not affect any program rights of the Winnemucca Indian Tribe. Its primary function will be to administer justice for misdemeanor offenses within the Winnemucca Reservation and Colony grounds. The court's jurisdiction will be limited to criminal offense provided in 25 CFR part 11 and the Law and Order Code of the Winnemucca Tribe.

(d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The Solicitor analyzed and upheld the Department of the Interior's authority to establish Courts of Indian Offenses in a memorandum dated February 28, 1935. The Solicitor found that authority to rest principally in the statutes placing supervision of the Indians in the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for “Indian judges.” The United States Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Secretary to promulgate regulations with respect to Courts of Indian Offenses in United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888).

The Bureau of Indian Affairs certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The amendment to 25 CFR part 11.100(a) will establish a Court of Indian Offenses with limited criminal jurisdiction over Indians within a limited geographical area at Winnemucca, Nevada.

Accordingly, there will be no impact on any small entities.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses is estimated to cost less than $200,000 annually to operate. The cost associated with the operation of this court will be with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Winnemucca Tribe.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This is a court established specifically for the administration of misdemeanor justice for Indians located within the boundaries of the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony and will not have any cost or price impact on any other entities in the geographical region.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This is a court established specifically for the administration of misdemeanor justice for Indians located within the boundaries of the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony, Winnemucca, Nevada, and will not have an adverse impact on competition, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):

(a) This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses will not have jurisdiction to affect any rights of the small governments. Its primary function will be to administer justice for misdemeanor offenses within the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony grounds. Its jurisdiction will be limited to criminal offense provided in 25 CFR part 11 and the Law and Order Code of the Winnemucca Tribe.

(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. The amendment to 25 CFR 11.100(a) will establish a Court of Indian Offenses with limited criminal jurisdiction over Indians within a limited geographical area at Winnemucca, Nevada. Accordingly, there will be no jurisdictional basis to adversely affect any property interest because the court's jurisdiction is solely personal jurisdiction over Indians.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism assessment is not required. The Solicitor found that authority to rest principally in the statutes placing supervision of the Indians in the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for “Indian judges.” The United States Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Secretary to promulgate regulations with respect to Courts of Indian Offenses in United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888).

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Solicitor analyzed and upheld the Department of the Interior's authority to establish Courts of Indian Offenses in a memorandum dated February 28, 1935. The Solicitor found that authority to rest principally in the statutes placing supervision of the Indians in the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for “Indian judges.” The United States Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Secretary to promulgate regulations with respect to Courts of Indian Offenses in United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888). Part 11 also requires the establishment of an appeals court; hence, the judicial system defined in Executive Order 12988 will not normally be involved in this judicial process.

This regulation does not require an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection is not covered by an existing OMB approval. An OMB form 83-I have not been prepared and have not been approved by the Office of Policy Analysis. No information is being collected as a result of this court exercising its limited criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction over Indians within the exterior boundaries of the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony.

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/assessment is not required. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses conveys personal jurisdiction over the criminal misdemeanor actions of Indians within the exterior boundaries of the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony and does not have any impact of the environment.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. The amendment to 25 CFR part 11.100(a) does not apply to any of the 564 federally recognized tribes, except the Winnemucca Indian Tribe. The provisional Court of Indian Offenses will exist until the tribe establishes a tribal court to provide for a law and order and a judicial system to deal with law and order on the trust land at the Winnemucca Indian Reservation and Colony, but is expected not to exceed 2 years. The Department of the Interior, in establishing this provisional court, is fulfilling its trust responsibility and complying with the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

By law (31 U.S.C. 3711(a)), heads of Federal agencies are required to attempt to collect debts owed to those agencies. Among other things, Federal agencies may seek collection using one or more administrative means, such as contracting with private collection agencies. 31 U.S.C. 3718. The Department of the Treasury aggressively attempts to collect debts owed it by using multiple collection methods, including administrative collection. 31 CFR 5.2(e), 5.4, 5.9(c), and 5.15. An unpaid civil penalty is a debt under Treasury regulations. 31 CFR 5.1.

OFAC is revising pertinent sections of the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 535, the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 550, and the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 575, to reaffirm that administrative collection of civil penalties is authorized in addition to or in lieu of judicial means of collection.

Because the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, and the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations involve a foreign affairs function of the United States, and because this rule imposes no new substantive duties or obligations on the public but rather clarifies OFAC's options regarding existing legal authorities and requirements related to the administrative collection of debts owed to the Government, the provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) do not apply.

This file is available for download without charge in ASCII and Adobe Acrobat readable (*.PDF) formats at GPO Access. GPO Access supports HTTP, FTP, and Telnet at fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. It may also be accessed by modem dialup at (202) 512-1387 followed by typing “/GO/FAC.” Paper copies of this document can be obtained by calling the Government Printing Office at (202) 512-1530. This document and additional information concerning the programs of the Office of Foreign Assets Control are available for downloading from the Office's Internet Home Page: http://www.treas.gov/ofac, or via FTP at ofacftp.treas.gov. Facsimiles of information are available through the Office's 24-hour fax-on-demand service: call (202) 622-0077 using a fax machine, fax modem, or (within the United States) a touch-tone telephone.

The revised DOD Directive 4165.6 is available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/dir1.html.

The U.S. Naval Academy Sailing Squadron will sponsor the 26th Annual Safety at Sea Seminar on the waters of the Severn River, near the entrance to College Creek at Annapolis, Maryland from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Waterborne activities will include exposure suit and life raft demonstrations, a pyrotechnics live-fire exercise, and a helicopter rescue. In order to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.518 will be enforced for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.518, vessels may not enter the regulated area without permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel. Because these restrictions will be in effect for a limited period, they should not result in a significant disruption of maritime traffic.

In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

The CSX Transportation Company has requested a temporary deviation in order to repair the main drive motor and associated hydraulic components of the operating mechanism of the CSX Transportation Railroad Bascule Span Bridge across the Pascagoula River, mile 1.5, at Pascagoula, Jackson County, Mississippi. Recently, the main drive motor failed, and the draw span is currently being operated with the auxiliary motor. The repairs are necessary for continued operation of the draw span. This temporary deviation will allow bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. until noon and from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. Monday through Thursday from April 11, 2005 until April 14, 2005. There may be times, during the closure periods, when the draw will not be able to open for emergencies.

As the bridge has no vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position, vessels will not be able to transit through the bridge site when the bridge is closed. Navigation on the waterway consists of small cargo ships, tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational craft including sailboats and power boats. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels.

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.

On December 15, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, New York, in the Federal Register (69 FR 75011). We received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Long Beach Bridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

The Town of Hempstead, Department of Public Works requested that the Long Beach Bridge opening schedule be changed to allow the Long Beach Bridge to remain closed from 10 p.m. to midnight on July 3 each year to facilitate vehicular traffic and public safety during the annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display at Town Park on Lookout Point, New York.

On June 2, 2004, we published a temporary deviation and request for comment entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, New York, in the Federal Register (69 FR 31005). We received no comments in response to our temporary deviation and request for comment.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this final rule.

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).

This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge closure is of short duration in the interest of public safety.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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 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 bridge closure is of short duration in the interest of public safety.

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.

No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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.

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.

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.

We have analyzed this final 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. It has been determined that this final rule does not significantly impact the environment.

On December 15, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Taunton River, Massachusetts, in the Federal Register (69 FR 75013). We received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Brightman Street Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 27 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.619(b).

The Town of Somerset and the Massachusetts State Police asked the Coast Guard and the bridge owner, Massachusetts Highway Department, for assistance with vehicular traffic delays resulting from unregulated bridge openings during the morning and afternoon rush hours at the Brightman Street Bridge.

The Coast Guard, in response to the above request, issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations (69 FR 35244) on June 24, 2004, with a request for public comment.

The temporary deviation was in effect for a period of 90 days to test an alternate operation schedule which is the same schedule that was proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking, published on December 15, 2004.

Under the temporary deviation effective from July 1, 2004 through September 28, 2004, the Brightman Street Bridge remained closed for the passage of pleasure craft from 7 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Commercial vessel traffic was allowed to pass through the bridge on signal at all times during the 90-day test period.

The drawbridge operation schedule implemented during the 90-day test period successfully alleviated vehicular traffic delays with no known adverse effects on navigation. The Coast Guard received no comment letters in response to the temporary deviation.

As discussed above, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 15, 2004, to make the operating rules tested during the temporary deviation a permanent change to the operation regulations.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this final rule.

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).

This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open at all times for commercial vessel traffic.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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 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 bridge will continue to open at all times for commercial vessel traffic.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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.

No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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.

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.

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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this final 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. It has been determined that this final rule does not significantly impact the environment.

The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(e).

The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate rehabilitation repairs at the bridge. The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform these repairs.

Under this temporary deviation the NYCDOT Metropolitan Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position from April 7, 2005 through April 8, 2005, and from April 13, 2005 through April 15, 2005.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.

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. Publishing a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest, since immediate action is needed to protect mariners against potential hazards associated with oil spill recovery operations and to ensure the safety of the environment on the Delaware River and its' tributaries. Due to the amount of time needed to clean up the oil spill, this safety zone is needed to facilitate safe oil spill recovery operations.

On November 27, 2004 at 9:30 p.m. the T/V ATHOS I reported a major discharge of oil on the waters of the Delaware River. Oil spill response operations are being conducted in the safety zone. A number of oil spill response vessels and clean up personnel will be in the safety zone during the duration of the response operations. This rule establishes a safety zone, on the Delaware River covering all the waters of the area bound from the Commodore Barry Bridge to the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, shoreline to shoreline. Mariners transiting the safety zone must minimize wake as to not affect clean up operations. The safety zone will protect mariners and oil spill responders from the hazards associated with spill recovery and clean up operations. The Captain of the Port will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of any changes made to the safety zone.

This temporary rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule will 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.

This rule will have virtually no impact on any small entities. This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, it is exempt from the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605 (b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 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.

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 (1-888-743-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

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 this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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 does not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule does 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.

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.

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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12211, 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.

Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state which contains areas that are not attaining the NAAQS, must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.

Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

Revisions made to the SIP amended existing requirements and added new requirements to control VOC emissions. The revisions also made a variety of changes which (1) clarify and add flexibility to existing requirements, (2) correct technical and typographical errors, (3) update references to terms and cross references, and (4) delete redundant language and language made obsolete by the passing of compliance dates.

The revisions added new requirements to control VOC emissions in the Austin-San Marcos and San Antonio EAC areas (30 TAC 115.227). The Austin-San Marcos EAC area includes Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties. The San Antonio EAC area includes Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe and Wilson Counties. Motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities in these areas must meet gasoline vapor recovery control requirements no later than December 31, 2005. For these areas the exemption level for facilities subject to gasoline vapor recovery controls was lowered from those dispensing less than 125,000 gallons of gasoline to those dispensing less than 25,000 gallons in a month. Under these requirements the vapors from the gasoline station storage tanks must be captured as tank-trucks fill these tanks and the vapors returned to the tank-truck. This is commonly known as Stage I vapor recovery. The tank-truck then carries the vapors back to the bulk gasoline plant or terminal. To insure the vapors are not lost in transit, the Texas rules also include requirements that the gasoline tank-trucks be tested for vapor tightness.

Motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston-Galveston areas are subject to new requirements (30 TAC 115.242). The counties in these areas are Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant, and Waller. Facilities in these counties that dispense 10,000 gallons of fuel or more per month are required to operate Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems. Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems control VOC vapor releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This process takes the vapors normally emitted directly into the atmosphere when pumping gas and recycles them back into the fuel storage tanks, preventing them from polluting the air. The revisions updated regulations that ensure that, where required, gasoline vapor recovery systems maintain a recovery rate of 95% or greater. Beginning April 1, 2005 new Stage II systems must be compatible with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipment required on newer vehicles. Existing Stage II systems must be upgraded to an ORVR compatible system no later than April 1, 2007. This should decrease the amount of excess emissions caused by incompatibility between ORVR and Stage II recovery systems. Testing of Stage II recovery systems was increased from a five-year requirement to a one-year requirement, with the exception of the vapor space manifold test and the dynamic back pressure test, which are required every three years. The Texas SIP was also revised to remove language that could potentially provide a Stage I exemption for a facility that is required to have Stage II vapor recovery (30 TAC 227). All Stage II vapor recovery systems must include Stage I vapor recovery in order to operate properly.

Existing facilities in the San Antonio and Austin Early EAC areas that employ solvent using processes for cleaning and degreasing are required to implement VOC controls no later than December 31, 2005 (30 TAC 115 sections 412, 416, 415-417, and 419). These controls were already required for new facilities in the State.

Testing methods used to determine compliance for Texas facilities subject to requirements for solvent degreasing were expanded to allow use of additional test methods provided the method was validated by EPA Test Method 301 found in 40 CFR 63, Appendix A (30 TAC 115.415(3)). These methods are used to measure vapor pressure, flow rates, and gaseous emissions for solvent degreasing processes. The regulations apply to operations that use solvent degreasing processes in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, the Austin-San Marcos and San Antonio EAC areas, and Gregg, Nueces and Victoria Counties. The Austin-San Marcos and San Antonio EAC areas were added in these submitted revisions. The revisions also add a minor recordkeeping requirement necessary to determine whether solvent degreasing operations in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties are exempt from VOC controls (30 TAC 115.416(3)). This requirement states that the operator must keep records in sufficient detail to document compliance with the exemption cutoff limit of 550 pounds of VOC emissions in any consecutive 24-hour period.

The revisions added new requirements for using cutback asphalt in the Austin EAC area. Cutback asphalt consists of asphalt cement blended with a petroleum solvent. The requirements were already in place for the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston-Galveston areas (30 TAC 115 sections 512, 516, 517, and 519). The requirements state that (1) the use of conventional cutback asphalt containing VOC solvents for the paving of roadways, driveways, or parking lots is restricted to no more than 7.0% of the total annual volume averaged over a two-year period of asphalt used by or specified for use by any state, municipal, or county agency who uses or specifies the type of asphalt application; and (2) the use, application, sale, or offering for sale of conventional cutback asphalt containing VOC solvents for paving roadways, driveways, or parking lots is prohibited during the period from April 16 to September 15 of any year.

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas ozone SIP (Texas SIP) that pertain to regulations which control VOC emissions in Texas. The revisions were adopted by the State of Texas and submitted to EPA on (1) September 7, 2001, (2) November 14, 2002, (3) January 28, 2003, and (4) December 6, 2004.

The revisions submitted to EPA on September 7, 2001 that are being approved pertain to control of VOC emissions from degreasing processes and cutback asphalt. The EPA previously approved rules for degreasing and cutback asphalt into the Texas SIP as meeting RACT requirements for the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston-Galveston, and Victoria 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas on March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12438). The submitted revisions amended §§ 115.412, 115.413, 115.415, 115.416, 115.417, 115.419, 115.512, 115.517, and 115.519 in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. The revisions made a variety of changes which clarify and add flexibility to existing requirements, correct technical and typographical errors, update references to terms, and delete redundant language and language made obsolete by the passing of compliance dates. The revisions expand testing methods used to determine compliance for Texas facilities subject to requirements for solvent degreasing. The revisions also add a minor recordkeeping requirement necessary to determine whether degreasing operations in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties are exempt from VOC controls (30 TAC 115.416(3)). EPA is approving these revisions under part D of the Act because they improve the SIP-approved rules and they are consistent with the RACT requirements and guidance for ozone nonattainment areas. Other revisions submitted to EPA on September 7, 2001 will be addressed in another Federal Register action. See our Technical Support Document (TSD) for more information.

The revisions submitted to EPA on November 14, 2002 that are being approved pertain to the control of gasoline vapors from refueling of motor vehicles, Stage II, in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA previously approved the Stage II rules for the four 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 17940). The submitted revisions amended §§ 115.227, and 115.240-115.249 in 30 TAC 115. The revisions ensure that gasoline vapor recovery systems maintain a recovery rate of 95% or greater and make new Stage II systems compatible with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipment required on newer vehicles, beginning April 1, 2005. This should decrease the amount of excess emissions caused by incompatibility between ORVR and Stage II recovery systems. The revisions also removed language that could potentially provide a Stage I exemption for a facility that is required to have Stage II vapor recovery. EPA is approving these Stage II revisions under part D of the Act because they improve the SIP-approved rules and they are consistent with the Stage II requirements and guidance for ozone nonattainment areas.

The revisions submitted to EPA on January 28, 2003 that are being approved pertain to the control of VOC emissions from (1) filling of gasoline storage vessels for motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities, Stage I, and (2) leaks from the gasoline tank trucks as they return to the bulk gasoline plant or terminal. Under the 1990 Amendments, the EPA approved revised Texas Stage I rules into the Texas SIP for the Houston-Galveston, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, and Beaumont-Port Arthur 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas on March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12438). The EPA approved revisions to these rules covering the eastern half of the State of Texas on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79745) under part D of the Act because Texas relied upon these VOC reductions to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston-Galveston areas. We also approved them under section 110 and 116 because Texas relied upon these rules for the continued maintenance of the standard in the eastern half of the State of Texas and as a strengthening of the Texas SIP. The submitted revisions amended §§ 115.229, 115.239, in 30 TAC 115. The revisions made a variety of changes which clarify existing requirements, update cross references and delete language made obsolete by the passing of compliance dates. We are approving these revisions under part D and sections 110 and 116 because they improve the SIP-approved rules and they are consistent with the requirements and guidance. Other revisions submitted to EPA on January 28, 2003 will be addressed in another Federal Register action. See our TSD for more information.

The revisions submitted to EPA on December 6, 2004 that are being approved pertain to the control of VOC emissions in Austin-San Marcos and San Antonio EAC areas. An EAC is a voluntary plan to meet the national 8-hour ambient air quality ozone standard for an area that is approaching or monitoring exceedances of the standard. The Austin-San Marcos EAC area includes Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties. The San Antonio EAC area includes Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe and Wilson Counties. The submitted revisions amended §§ 115.227, 115.229, 115.412, 115.413, 115.415-115.417, 115.419, 115.512, 115.516, 115.517, and 115.519 in 30 TAC 115. These revisions lowered the applicability threshold for Stage I and added the degreasing VOC requirements in the two areas, and added the cutback asphalt VOC requirements in the Austin EAC area.

This action approves revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to regulations to control VOC emissions. This approval will make these revised regulations federally enforceable. Enforcement of the regulations in a State SIP before and after it is incorporated into the federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulations are federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.

EPA is approving revisions to the Texas SIP pertaining to control of VOC emissions. The revisions were submitted to EPA by the State of Texas on (1) September 7, 2001, (2) November 14, 2002, (3) January 28, 2003 and (4) December 6, 2004. The revisions being approved are §§ 115.227, 115.229, 115.239-115.249, 115.412, 115.413, 115.415-115.417, 115.419, 115.512, 115.516, 115.517, and 115.519 in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds.

We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA air quality regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy. Therefore, we are approving revisions to the Texas SIP which revise regulations to control VOC emissions.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on May 31, 2005 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by April 28, 2005. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

I. Background

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NOX sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:

(1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;

(2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and

(3) All major non-CTG sources.

The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major sources of NOX and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. These regulations are commonly termed the “generic RACT regulations”. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead establishes procedures for imposing case-by-case RACT determinations. The Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations consist of the procedures PADEP uses to establish and impose RACT for subject sources of VOC and NOX. Pursuant to the SIP-approved generic RACT rules, PADEP imposes RACT on each subject source in an enforceable document, usually a Plan Approval (PA) or Operating Permit (OP). The Commonwealth then submits these PAs and OPs to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions.

On August 30, 2004, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for eleven sources of VOC and NOX. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of PAs and OPs which impose VOC and NOX RACT requirements for each source.

Copies of the actual PAs and OPs imposing RACT and PADEP's evaluation memoranda are included in the electronic and hard copy docket for this final rule. As previously stated, all documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. The table below identifies the sources and the individual plan approvals (PAs) and operating permits (OPs) which are the subject of this rulemaking.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC RACT for eleven major sources. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on May 31, 2005 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 28, 2005. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for 11 named sources.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule approving source-specific RACT requirements for eleven major sources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

On September 11, 2001, terrorists launched attacks on targets within the United States. Following the terrorist attacks, on November 12, 2001, Congress enacted Public Law 107-69 (now codified at 43 U.S.C. 373b and 373c), to provide law enforcement authority within Reclamation projects and on Reclamation lands. Section 1(a) of Public Law 107-69 requires Reclamation to “issue regulations necessary to maintain law and order and protect persons and property within Reclamation projects and on Reclamation lands.” Pursuant to that statutory requirement, Reclamation issued a final rule, 43 CFR Part 423, Public Conduct on Reclamation Lands and Projects, on April 17, 2002 (now codified at 43 CFR 423.1-10). That rule's preamble set the rule to expire on April 17, 2003, based on Reclamation's intent to develop a more comprehensive public conduct rule by that date. On April 3, 2003, Reclamation extended that expiration date to April 17, 2005.

A more comprehensive rule is currently under development, but additional time is needed to complete that rulemaking. In order to avoid a time period during which no rule is in place addressing public conduct on our lands and facilities, Reclamation has decided to extend the expiration date of the existing rule from April 17, 2005, to April 17, 2006.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to provide advance notice and an opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. However, the APA allows an agency to promulgate rules without notice and comment when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to the rule, good cause exists to exempt this rulemaking from advance notice and comment.

Allowing a period for advance notice could result in the expiration of the existing rule before this rule, which extends the expiration date, goes into effect. A period without a rule in place addressing public conduct on Reclamation lands and projects would result in a serious disruption in the protection of Reclamation facilities and property, with accompanying confusion to employees and the public. Such disruption and confusion would be contrary to public and national security interests.

We expect to issue a comprehensive rule that would supersede the existing rule in the near future. Establishing a public comment period for the extension of the existing rule's expiration date is likely to create significant public confusion in that such a comment period might closely coincide with the comment period on the proposed comprehensive rule.

Finally, the existing rule which was issued on April 17, 2002, generated virtually no public reaction. Despite our request for comments on the rule, we received only one nonsubstantive comment. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that mere extension of the rule's expiration date would result in substantive comments from the public.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to request public comment on this rule.

A period without a rule in place addressing public conduct on Reclamation lands and projects would result in a serious disruption in the protection of Reclamation facilities and property, with accompanying confusion to employees and the public. This disruption and confusion would be contrary to public and national security interests. For these reasons, the Bureau of Reclamation has determined it appropriate to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the effective date. As allowed by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), this rule is effective immediately because it is in the public interest not to delay implementation of this amendment.

We have reviewed this final rule under the following statutes and executive orders governing rulemaking procedures: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; Executive Order 12630 (Takings); Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Executive Order 13132 (Federalism); Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation); and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Impacts). We have determined that this rule does not trigger any of the procedural requirements of those statutes and executive orders because it merely extends the expiration date of the existing rule.

The interim rule, as published, contained incorrect column headings in two tables and an incorrect date. These errors could confuse the reader and need to be corrected.

The FAR prescribes policies and procedures for authorizing deviations from the FAR when necessary to meet the specific needs and requirements of an agency unless precluded by law, executive order, or regulation. FAR 1.402 provides that the development and testing of new techniques and methods of acquisition should not be stifled simply because such actions would require a FAR deviation. However, deviations to the FAR and the GSAR have raised questions indicating the need to increase the involvement of the Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer. Therefore, this final rule modifies GSAR 501.403 and 501.404 to include revised procedures for obtaining deviations and clarify the term “class deviation,” and adds GSAR 501.404-70 to clarify the term “contract action.”

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule. This final rule does not constitute a significant FAR revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577, and publication for public comments is not required. However, GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Subpart 501.4 in accordance with 5 USC. 610. Interested must parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et. seq. (GSAR case 2004-G508), in correspondence.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the GSAR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or otherwise collect information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C.3501, et seq.

On May 30, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a final rule (67 FR 37695) reclassifying the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru from endangered to threatened under the ESA. The final rule also established a special rule (under section 4(d) of the ESA) allowing the importation into the United States of legal fiber and legal products produced with fiber from vicuña populations listed as threatened under the Act and in Appendix II of CITES, if certain conditions are satisfied by the exporting (range) or re-exporting country. This special rule is contained in 50 CFR 17.40(m).

The special rule contains errors in two paragraphs: (1) Paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A) on labeling requirements for legal vicuña fiber and fiber products; and (2) paragraph (m)(4)(i) on annual reporting requirements. With this technical amendment, we are correcting existing errors, as well as making changes to these paragraphs to clarify language that has been identified as unclear.

Paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A) addresses labeling requirements for legal vicuña fiber and fiber products. The special rule is perhaps not explicit enough in explaining that labeling requirements pertain to all imports, exports, and re-exports. We are amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A) to explicitly state that labeling requirements pertain to all imports, exports, and re-exports, including raw fiber re-exported from, or products manufactured in, intermediary countries.

Paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) specifies that cloth and cloth products must bear the logo adopted by countries signatory to the “Convenio para la Conservación y Manejo de la Vicuña,” and the words “VICUÑA-(Country of Origin)” (where country of origin is the name of the original exporting country where the vicuña fiber in the products originated, either Argentina, Bolivia, or Chile) or “VICUÑA-PERU-ARTESANIA” (for Peru only). However, the words “VICUÑA-PERU-ARTESANIA” have never been used to label cloth and cloth products from Peru. Peru uses the words “VICUÑA-PERU” for these products. We are amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) to reflect that only the words “VICUÑA-(Country of Origin)” are used for cloth and cloth products.

In addition, paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) does not specify how the logo and words must appear on the cloth or cloth product. We are amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) to clarify that the logo and words may be stitched into the cloth or may appear on a sewn-in label.

Finally, paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) does not explicitly state that the labeling requirement also pertains to samples of cloth or samples of cloth products, as well as to other manufactured goods not specifically covered in subsequent paragraphs. We are amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(1) to clarify that samples and other manufactured goods can be imported only if they meet the same requirements as cloth and cloth products.

Paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(2) describes the labeling requirements for finished vicuña products (including luxury handicrafts and knitted articles) and any bulk shipments of raw fiber. It specifies that finished vicuña products (including luxury handicrafts and knitted articles) and any bulk shipments of raw fiber must “have a seal or identification tag with codes describing the origin of the vicuña product, the trademark or label (“VICUÑA-(Country of Origin)” (where country of origin is the name of the original exporting country where the vicuña fiber in the products originated, either Argentina, Bolivia, or Chile) or “VICUÑA-PERU-ARTESANIA” (for Peru only), and the CITES export permit number, where country of origin is the name of the original exporting country where the vicuña fiber in the products originated.” However, as a result of a proposal adopted at the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, luxury handicrafts and knitted articles produced by native craftpersons within the country of origin should bear the label “VICUÑA-(Country of Origin)-ARTESANIA.” This label does not apply to all finished vicuña products, but only to luxury handicrafts and knitted articles made by native craftpersons in the country of origin. In addition, these products must have the logo adopted by countries signatory to the “Convenio para la Conservación y Manejo de la Vicuña.” We are amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(2) to reflect that only luxury handicrafts and knitted articles made in the country of origin can have the label “VICUÑA-(Country of Origin)-ARTESANIA,” and that these articles must also have the logo adopted by countries signatory to the “Convenio para la Conservación y Manejo de la Vicuña.” We are also amending paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(2) to clarify that the logo and words may be woven into the item or may appear on a sewn-in label.

In addition, paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(2) states that the shipment must have a seal or identification tag with codes describing the origin of the vicuña product and the CITES export permit number. It is not clear that this requirement pertains only to bulk shipments of raw fiber. We are amending the special rule, specifically by adding a new paragraph (m)(2)(i)(A)(3), to clarify that only bulk fiber shipments are subject to this requirement and to clarify the labeling information that is being required.

Paragraph (m)(4)(i) of the special rule describes the annual reporting requirement for range country governments wishing to export specimens of vicuña to the United States. In the list of types of information required in the annual report, we inadvertently labeled two paragraphs with the letter (E). Through this document, we are correcting the text in 50 CFR 17.40(m), paragraph (4)(i), to eliminate the duplicate (E) and to label each subparagraph in correct alphabetical order.

We are making no further amendments to the May 30, 2002, final rule.

We have reviewed this rule under the following statutes and Executive Orders that govern the rulemaking process: Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)); Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); Executive Order 12630 (Takings); Executive Order 13132 (Federalism); Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); National Environmental Policy Act; Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) and 512 DM 2 (Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes); and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that this rule does not trigger any of the procedural requirements of these Executive Orders or statutes since this rule is only making technical corrections to the May 30, 2002, special rule.

We, for good cause, have determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) are unnecessary for this rule because it is only making technical corrections to the May 30, 2002, special rule. Further delaying the correction of this rule by engaging in normal public procedure would be contrary to the public interest.

Under the APA, our normal practice is to publish rules with a 30-day delay in effective date. But in this case, we are using the “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication because it is only making technical corrections to the May 30, 2002, special rule and for the reason just stated above.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2005 first seasonal allowance of the Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 31,345 metric tons (mt) as established by the 2005 and 2006 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (70 FR 8979, February 24, 2005), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 1, 2005, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., April 1, 2005. See §§ 679.20(c)(3)(iii), (c)(5), and (a)(7)(i)(B). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the directed fishery for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear was closed effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 13, 2005 (70 FR 12811, March 16, 2005), because it was determined that the 2005 first seasonal allowance of the Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI had been caught.

NMFS has determined that as of March 18, 2005, the remaining amount of the 2005 first seasonal allowance of the Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 2,400 metric tons. Therefore, in accordance with §§ 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C) and 679.25(a)(2)(iii)(D), NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 29, 2005.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reopening of the fishery for the remaining 2005 first seasonal allowance of the Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.