Section 111 of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265; June 30, 2004) amended section 9(h) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1758(h)) by increasing the number of mandatory food safety inspections for schools participating in the NSLP and SBP from one to two per year, and by requiring schools to post the most recent inspection report in a visible location and to release a copy of the report to the public upon request. Section 111 also requires State agencies to annually monitor the number of food safety inspections obtained by schools and to submit the results to FNS for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. (While Public Law 108-265 uses the term “audit”, this rule uses the word “monitor” because it more appropriately describes the State agency's review of the number of inspections completed.) Compliance with these requirements is required to begin on July 1, 2005.

Prior to Public Law 108-265, the NSLA and NSLP regulations at 7 CFR 210.13(b) required schools to obtain at least one school food safety inspection per year, except when a food safety inspection of the school was mandated by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections. No audit or reporting requirements existed.

Section 111 further adds a requirement that SFAs implement a school food safety program for the preparation and service of meals that complies with any hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system established by the Secretary. This rule does not address the HACCP requirement. It will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

Food safety has always been a priority for the school meal programs. Thanks to the efforts of thousands of school foodservice workers, school meals are among the safest food available to children nationwide. Government data suggest that employee food safety practices at elementary schools are superior to those at fast food and full-service restaurants. 1

However, increasing public concern over reports of food safety violations in foodservice establishments nationwide and in some school districts led Congress to increase the number of required food safety inspections for schools. Congress has determined that it is necessary for all schools to adopt a more vigilant approach to guarding the safety of the program meals consumed by over 28 million children each day, as well as the several million children that purchase a la carte food items every day. Increasing the number of required inspections is expected to encourage more stringent food safety practices and further protect children from foodborne illness. This Congressional mandate is consistent with the NSLP's overall goal to protect the health and well-being of school children.

Two food safety inspections annually will give schools additional opportunities to identify and correct immediate and/or persistent food safety problems. Schools will also be better able to assess where they need to make changes to achieve food safety.

FNS has no discretion in implementing the inspection requirement established by Public Law 108-265. However, we will work with our State cooperators, within the parameters of the law, to help facilitate compliance with the inspection requirement.

Many schools participate in both the NSLP and the SBP and use the same facilities for the production and service of meals. Schools participating in more than one school meal program will not be required to obtain separate food inspections for each meal program if production and service of meals take place in the same facility. This rule also allows food safety inspections conducted under the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) or the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) at sites participating in these programs and in the NSLP and/or SBP to be counted toward meeting the annual requirement as long as the inspections cover the same food service facility. The requirements of Public Law 108-265 do not apply to schools that only offer the Special Milk Program.

Where there are indications that schools have difficulty complying with the inspection requirement, State agencies should work with State and local health officials to achieve compliance. In all cases, schools should fully document their efforts to comply with the food safety inspection requirement.

FNS expects State agencies to take a leading role in ensuring that schools meet the food safety provision. Prompt discussion and cooperation among the State agency, local educational agencies, and State and local public health agencies is essential to minimize obstacles that may hinder school compliance with the inspection requirement. This is necessary because the law requires that school food safety inspections be conducted by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections.

The law requires the State agencies to monitor school compliance with the inspection requirement and to report the results to FNS for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. The reports by the State agencies will document the number of annual inspections obtained by local schools per school year and indicate nationwide compliance. The reports will be due to FNS by November 15 following each school year, which allows State agencies sufficient time to collect the inspection data from SFAs.

FNS will develop a form for the States to report the aggregate data on inspections. A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 25014 on May 12, 2005 announcing the information collection requirement.

This provision of the Reauthorization Act establishes a new and critical requirement for the school food service and for the school meal programs. This change in the Federal law removes the flexibility that existed in the previous health inspection requirement, and now requires that every participating school have at least two food safety inspections each school year. However, schools must depend on the specific action of another public agency, such as a local health department, to comply with the new inspection requirement. Consequently, compliance will require a commitment from Federal, State, and local government agencies to work cooperatively to fulfill their mutual responsibility to protect the health and welfare of school children. FNS will do everything it can to inform all parties at the Federal level of this important task, and expects State agencies to do the same across State government. School districts will need to work with local health authorities to construct procedures to accomplish the required inspections where no mechanism currently exists.

Schools may use school food service funds to pay associated costs that are directly attributable to compliance with the inspection requirement and that are otherwise permissible as allowable costs.

FNS will continue to offer guidance and resources to strengthen food safety practices in schools. Because education of the food program staff is essential, we provide schools with material to help employees learn and practice food safety. FNS currently provides schools with publications and posters emphasizing proper food handling, employee personal hygiene, appropriate food temperature, cross-contamination prevention and other food safety topics. We will continue to work closely with the National Food Service Management Institute to develop additional technical assistance materials and training programs related to school food safety. “Serving It Safe—A Manager's Tool Kit” (second edition), one of the materials developed through this collaboration, was sent to State agencies in 2003 for distribution to SFAs.

This interim rule has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This rule increases the number of food safety inspections required for schools participating in the school meal programs. While this requirement imposes a reporting burden, it does not constitute a significant economic impact on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, FNS must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this interim rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The National School Lunch Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, and the School Breakfast Program is listed under No. 10.553. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), these programs are included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.

Shortly after passage of the Reauthorization Act, FNS held discussions with State education agencies that administer child nutrition programs and with organizations representing State and local public health agencies. These discussions provided FNS an opportunity to inform State and local officials about the new inspection requirement and to hear their concerns. However, the pre-emptive status of the law and the requirement to implement the provision by July 1, 2005, has precluded any need of, or opportunity for, formal consultation. The interim nature of this rule will, however, allow for changes based on local experience, provided they are consistent with the law.

Several State and local officials are concerned that the increased inspection requirement may result in additional expenses and workload for schools, and for the State and local health agencies responsible for conducting the inspections. Although FNS is aware of the potential impact of this rule, it is our responsibility to carry out this statutory requirement aimed at improving the safety of school meals.

FNS understands the concerns of school officials and State and local health agencies. We provided timely information to the groups that will be affected by this rule and encouraged them to work together to remove barriers that may hinder school compliance with the inspection requirement.

FNS has attempted to minimize the impact of this rule by applying the inspection requirement to sites rather than individual school meal programs, and by allowing inspections performed for purposes of the SFSP and CACFP to meet the requirement if they use the same food service facility.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule has a preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Date paragraph of this or the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

FNS has reviewed this interim rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on children on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or disability. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that it does not affect the participation of protected individuals in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35, see 5 CFR Part 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. Information collections in this interim rule have been previously submitted to OMB for approval under OMB #0584-0006. A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 25014 on May 12, 2005, which provided the public an opportunity to submit comments on the information collection burden resulting from this rule. This information collection burden has not yet been approved by OMB. FNS will publish a document in the Federal Register once these requirements have been approved.

FNS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. FNS will examine ways to collect electronically the information required by this rule.

FNS has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b), that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and opportunity for public comments is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest and, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), finds that good cause exists for making this action effective without prior public comment. In Section 501(b) of Public Law 108-265, Congress specifically afforded the Secretary the option of implementing this rulemaking without prior notice and comment. In addition, the provisions of this interim rule reflect mandatory statutory requirements which are non-discretionary. The Department is, however, anxious to receive comments that might improve the administration of these mandatory requirements.

The agreements record specific requirements and responsibilities of sponsoring organizations and the family or group day care homes that participate in CACFP under their supervision. The standard form agreements are developed by State agencies. However, a State agency may allow sponsoring organizations to develop agreements for use with their family or group day care homes provided those agreements include all required elements.

Prior to reauthorization, the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act required each State agency to develop, and provide for use, a standard form of agreement, and that a sponsoring organization must enter into an agreement with each day care home, for the purpose of specifying the rights and responsibilities of each party. The law did not set requirements on the duration of agreements. Currently, the CACFP regulations found at 7 CFR Part 226 make no mention of, nor set limits on, the duration of agreements between the sponsoring organizations and family or group day care homes. As a result, administering State agencies have applied a variety of standards for the duration of the agreements. For example, some State agencies have linked the renewal of agreements between sponsors and family or group day care homes with the renewal of licensing and/or application process. Section 119 of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-265, amended section 17(j) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to mandate the use of permanent agreements between sponsoring organizations and family or group day care homes.

The change made by Public Law 108-265 was effective on June 30, 2004. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) notified CACFP State agencies through an implementation memorandum on July 12, 2004, that all day care homes must have a permanent agreement in place no later than July 1, 2005. Although this provision went into effect on the date of enactment, sponsors are not immediately required to revise currently valid agreements, but must make all agreements permanent as they are updated or revised.

On July 12, 2004, FNS provided CACFP State agencies with written guidance regarding the permanent agreement provision. In this written guidance, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Care/Reauth_Memos/2004-07-12.pdf , FNS explained that the agreement between sponsoring organizations and family or group day care homes must now be made permanent.

The rule will stipulate that either party to the permanent agreement may still terminate the agreement. Although the agreement is permanent, it does not remove the right of the sponsoring organization to terminate a family or group day care home for cause ( e.g. , expired license) or convenience. Additionally, the rule clarifies that the right of a day care home provider to change sponsors in accordance with current regulations is unchanged. Should a family or group day care home be out of compliance with program requirements, the sponsoring organization will follow the serious deficiency process, which may culminate in the termination of the family or group day care home's agreement. Sponsoring organizations will continue to be permitted to amend the permanent agreement when there is a change in program policy or meal services. State agencies and sponsoring organizations are reminded that permanent agreements must stipulate that CACFP payments are contingent upon the availability of Federal funds.

This change should have a minimal effect on family and group day care home providers. They will no longer be required to sign an annual agreement with their sponsoring organizations.

The primary change for sponsoring organizations of day care homes participating in the CACFP will be a reduction in their administrative workload and paperwork requirements. Sponsoring organizations will benefit from not having to renew agreements and should be able to direct their resources to other Program-related functions. In the past, some State agencies have required sponsoring organizations to link the renewal of agreements to the renewal of their family or group day care homes' licenses and/or applications, which usually occurred either annually or once every 2 or 3 years. The regulation mandates that sponsoring organizations of day care homes must establish permanent agreements with their family or group day care homes.

The effect on State agencies should be minimal. The annual responsibilities of State agencies, as described in the current CACFP regulations, are unchanged by the permanent agreement between the sponsoring organization and the family or group day care home. To implement this new provision, State agencies may require sponsoring organizations to amend their current agreement or execute a new permanent agreement.

Responsibilities for agreements between sponsoring organizations and family or group day care homes are described in the CACFP regulations at 7 CFR 226.6(p) for State agencies, and at 7 CFR 226.18(b) for day care homes. This final rule amends these two paragraphs to mandate that the agreements between sponsoring organizations and family or group day care homes be permanent, and adds a sentence to each of these paragraphs stating that the amendment does not change, nor affect, any other requirements of the CACFP regulations. These are the only changes that are made to the CACFP regulations by this rulemaking.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Roberto Salazar, Administrator for the Food and Nutrition Service, has certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will implement a statutory change that decreases the administrative workload and paperwork burden for sponsoring organizations by reducing the frequency with which agreements between sponsors and family or group day care home providers must be renewed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not anticipate any negative fiscal impact resulting from the implementation of this final rule.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Food and Nutrition Service generally prepares a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have “federalism implications,” agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulation describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(a)(B) of Executive Order 13132. FNS has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule would not have federalism implications. This final rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule will have a preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which otherwise impede its full implementation. This final rule does not have retroactive effect unless so specified in the DATES section of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this final rule or the application of the provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the Child and Adult Food Care Program, the administrative procedures are set forth at 7 CFR 226.6(k), which establishes appeal procedures; and 7 CFR 226.22 and 7 CFR parts 3016 and 3019, which address administrative appeal procedures for disputes involving procurement by State agencies and institutions.

FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that there is no negative effect on these groups. All data available to FNS indicate that protected individuals have the same opportunity to participate in the CACFP as non-protected individuals. Regulations at 7 CFR 226.6(f)(4)(iv) require that CACFP institutions agree to operate the Program in compliance with applicable Federal civil rights laws, including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Department's regulations concerning nondiscrimination (7 CFR Parts 15, 15a, and 15b). At 7 CFR 226.6(m)(1), State agencies are required to monitor CACFP institution compliance with these laws and regulations.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35, see 5 CFR 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. Information collections in this final rule have been previously submitted to OMB for approval under OMB #0584-0055. A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2005, at 70 FR 23835, which provides an opportunity for the public to submit comments on the reduction to the information collection burden resulting from the changes in the CACFP made by this final rule. This burden change has not yet been approved by OMB. FNS will publish a document in the Federal Register once these requirements have been approved.

FNS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The information collection in this rule involves the agreements that State agencies require sponsoring organizations to enter into with their family and group day care homes in order to participate in the CACFP. FNS encourages all State agencies and sponsoring organizations to automate their process whenever feasible.

This action is being finalized without prior notice or public comment under authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (B). This rule implements through amendments to current program regulations a nondiscretionary provision mandated by the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265). Thus, the Department has determined in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Opportunity for Public Comments is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest and, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), finds that good cause exists for making this action effective.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 1 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 2 (“Inflation Adjustment Act”) requires Federal agencies to adopt regulations at least once every four years adjusting for inflation the civil monetary penalties within the jurisdiction of the agency.

A civil monetary penalty (“civil penalty”) is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that is for a specific amount, or has a maximum amount, as provided by Federal law, and is assessed or enforced by an agency in an administrative proceeding or by a Federal court pursuant to Federal law. 3 This definition covers the civil penalties provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”), as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. , for respondents who violate FECA, or violate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. 9001 et seq. , or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. 9031 et seq. (collectively “chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26”). Under the Inflation Adjustment Act, a civil penalty is adjusted by a cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”), determined by multiplying the amount of the civil penalty by the percentage (if any) by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (“CPI”) for the month of June for the year preceding the year of adjustment exceeds the CPI for the month of June for the year in which the amount of the civil penalty was last set or adjusted. 4 The amount of the inflation adjustment is subject to rounding rules. 5

In March 1997, the Commission promulgated new rules to adjust FECA's then-current civil penalties pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act. Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts, 62 FR 11316 (Mar. 12, 1997) (“1997 Civil Penalty Adjustment E&J”). In January 2002, the Commission again examined its civil penalty rules under the Inflation Adjustment Act, but did not adjust any civil penalty rules because the operation of the Inflation Adjustment Act's rounding rules did not result in increases in any of the civil penalties. Agenda Doc. 02-06 (Jan. 17, 2002). As explained in more detail below, the Commission has determined that certain civil penalties in 11 CFR 111.24 and 111.44 must be increased again in 2005 due to the increases in the CPI and the application of the Inflation Adjustment Act's rounding rules to these civil penalties. However, other civil penalties in 11 CFR 111.24 and 111.43 are not being changed because the rounding rules negate any increases in the civil penalties that would have resulted from the increases in the CPI.

The Commission is required by statute to adjust the civil penalties under its jurisdiction by a COLA formula. This application of the COLA does not involve Commission discretion or any policy judgments. Thus, the Commission finds that the “good cause” exception to the notice and comment requirement in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act applies to these rules because notice and comment are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). For the same reasons, these rules do not need to be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , and these rules are effective upon publication. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). Accordingly, these amendments are effective on June 15, 2005. The new civil penalty amounts are applicable only to violations that occur after this effective date.

FECA provides for civil penalties for any person who violates any portion of FECA or chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26. FECA's civil penalties, found at 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5), (6), and (12), are organized into two tiers; one tier of civil penalties for violations of FECA or chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26, and a higher tier of civil penalties for “knowing and willful” violations of FECA or chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26. Commission regulations in section 111.24 set forth each civil penalty established by section 437g(a)(5), (6) and (12), as adjusted pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.

Under the core statutory provisions, the Commission may negotiate a civil penalty, or may institute an action for a civil penalty, or a court may impose a civil penalty, for a violation of FECA or of chapters 95 or 96 of Title 26 that does not exceed the greater of $5,000 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)(A), (6)(A) and (6)(B). The $5,000 civil penalty amount was increased to $5,500 when section 111.24(a) was promulgated in 1997. 6 1997 Civil Penalty Adjustment E&J at 11316.

At this time, to determine the appropriate COLA to apply to the $5,500 amount, the Commission uses the CPI for June of 2004, which is 189.7, and the CPI for June of 1997, which is 160.3. 7 The COLA is determined by dividing the CPI for June of 2004 (189.7) by the CPI for June of 1997 (160.3), which equals 1.183 (189.7/160.3 = 1.183). To obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty amount, the $5,500 amount is multiplied by the COLA of 1.183, which equals $6,507 ($5,500 × 1.183 = $6,507). Thus, the increase is $1,007 ($6,507−$5,500 = $1,007). The amount of the increase is subject to the Inflation Adjustment Act rounding rules. Under the rounding rules, where the existing civil penalty is greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000, the increase is rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. Therefore, the amount of the civil penalty increase is rounded to $1,000. Consequently, section 111.24(a)(1) is amended by adding $1,000 to the $5,500 civil penalty to obtain the new inflation-adjusted civil penalty of $6,500.

The Commission may seek, or a court may impose, a civil penalty for a “knowing and willful” violation of FECA or of chapters 95 or 96 of Title 26 that does not exceed the greater of $10,000 or an amount equal to 200% of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)(B) and (6)(C). The $10,000 civil penalty amount was increased to $11,000 when section 111.24(a) was promulgated in 1997. 8 1997 Civil Penalty Adjustment E&J at 11316.

At this time, to obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty, $11,000 is multiplied by the same COLA calculated above, i.e. , 1.183. The resulting amount equals $13,013 ($11,000 × 1.183 = $13,103). Thus, the increase is $2,013 ($13,013 − $11,000 = $2,013). Under the rounding rules, where the existing civil penalty is greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000, the increase is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000. Therefore, the amount of the civil penalty increase is rounded to zero, and the $11,000 civil penalty is not changed. Because no changes are being made at this time, the next adjustment will reflect inflationary changes since 1997 rather than 2005.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81,108, section 315 (2002) (“BCRA”), increased minimum and maximum civil penalties for knowing and willful violations of the prohibition on contributions made in the name of another in 2 U.S.C. 441f. As revised by BCRA, the civil penalty for such a violation is not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation, and is not more than the greater of $50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the violation. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)(B) and (6)(C); 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(ii). To determine the appropriate COLA to apply to the $50,000 amount, the Commission uses the CPI for June of 2004, which is 189.7, and the CPI for June of 2002, which is 179.9. The COLA is determined by dividing the CPI for June of 2004 (189.7) by the CPI for June of 2002 (179.9), which equals 1.054 (189.7/179.9 = 1.054). To obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty, $50,000 is multiplied by the COLA of 1.054, which equals $52,700 ($50,000 × 1.054 = $52,700). Thus, the increase is $2,700 ($52,700−$50,000 = $2,700). Under the rounding rules described above, $2,700 is rounded to $5,000. Consequently, section 111.24(a)(2)(ii) is amended by adding $5,000 to the $50,000 civil penalty to obtain the new inflation-adjusted civil penalty of $55,000.

Any Commission member or employee, or any other person, who makes public any notification or investigation under 2 U.S.C. 437g without receiving the written consent of the person receiving such notification, or the person with respect to whom such investigation is made, shall be fined not more than $2,000, except that any such member, employee, or other person who knowingly and willfully violates this provision shall be fined not more than $5,000. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(12)(B). In 1997, the Commission promulgated 11 CFR 111.24(b) to increase the $2,000 civil penalty to $2,200, and to increase the $5,000 civil penalty to $5,500. 9 1997 Civil Penalty Adjustment E&J at 11317.

For these civil penalties, the appropriate COLA is 1.183. See COLA calculation for civil penalties under 11 CFR 111.24(a)(1), above. To obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty for the $2,200 amount, $2,200 is multiplied by the COLA of 1.183, which equals $2,603 ($2,200 × 1.183 = $2,603). Thus, the increase is $403 ($2,603−$2,200 = $403). Under the rounding rules described above, $403 is rounded to zero. Thus, the $2,200 civil penalty remains unchanged. Because no changes are being made at this time, the next adjustment will reflect inflationary changes since 1997 rather than 2005.

To obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty for the $5,500 amount, $5,500 is multiplied by the COLA of 1.183, equaling $6,507 ($5,500 × 1.183 = $6,507). Thus, the increase is $1,007 ($6,507−$5,500 = $1,007). Under the rounding rules, the $1,007 amount is rounded to $1,000. Consequently, section 111.24(b) is amended by adding $1,000 to the $5,500 amount to obtain the new inflation-adjusted civil penalty of $6,500 for knowing and willful violations of confidentiality.

FECA permits the Commission to assess civil penalties for violations of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. 434(a) in accordance with schedules of penalties established and published by the Commission. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)(C). The schedules of penalties for political committees that file their reports late or that fail to file reports are set out in 11 CFR 111.43, and were last amended in 2003. Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Administrative Fines, 68 FR 12572, 12573-12575 (Mar. 17, 2003). To determine the appropriate COLA to apply to the schedules of penalties for violations of these reporting requirements, the Commission uses the CPI for June of 2004, which is 189.7, and the CPI for June of 2003, which is 183.7. Although applying the COLA of 1.033 (189.7/183.7 = 1.033) to all possible civil penalties under the schedules of penalties would result in a slight increase in the civil penalty amounts, the Inflation Adjustment Act rounding rules would round down the increased civil penalty amounts to the current amounts. Consequently, the formulas in the schedules of penalties in 11 CFR 111.43 are not changed.

However, the Commission is correcting a typographical error in the schedule at section 111.43(a)(2)(iii). Under the column entitled “[I]f the level of activity in the report was,” the level of activity of $450,000-$549,999.99 is missing the first instance of the number “4.” Thus, this level of activity is erroneously listed as “$50,000-549,999.99.” The Commission is correcting this to read “$450,000—$549,999.99.”

Principal campaign committees are required to report, within 48 hours of receipt, any contributions of $1,000 or more that are received after the 20th day, but more than 48 hours before any election. 2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6). FECA permits the Commission to assess civil penalties for violations of this reporting requirement. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)(C). In 2000, the Commission adopted rules setting forth the civil penalties for failure to file timely notices of these last-minute contributions. Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Administrative Fines , 65 FR 31787, 31793 (May 19, 2000). The amount of the civil penalty for each notice not filed timely is $100 plus ten percent of the amount of the contribution(s) not timely reported, and is increased for prior violations. 11 CFR 111.44. To determine the appropriate COLA to apply to the $100 amount, the Commission uses the CPI for June of 2004, which is 189.7, and the CPI for June of 2000, which is 172.4. The COLA is obtained by dividing the CPI for June of 2004 (189.7) by the CPI for June of 2000 (172.4), which equals 1.100 (189.7/172.4 = 1.100). To obtain the inflation-adjusted civil penalty amount, $100 is multiplied by the COLA of 1.100, which equals $110 ($100 × 1.100 = $110). Thus, the increase is $10 ($110−$100 = $10). The Inflation Adjustment Act rounding rules do not change the amount of this increase. 10 Consequently, section 111.44 is amended by adding $10 to the $100 civil penalty to obtain the new inflation-adjusted civil penalty of $110.

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to this final rule because the Commission was not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or to seek public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other laws. 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during greasing of the main landing gear (MLG) pintle bearings on a Model A320 series airplane, a crack was found in the forward lug of the right-hand MLG rib 5 fitting. The airplane had accumulated 12,634 total flight cycles and 19,710 total flight hours at the time of the findings. Laboratory analysis of the damaged lug revealed that it was fitted with a bushing that had insufficient cadmium plating. Further investigation revealed that certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes may have been equipped with bushings from a batch found to have insufficient cadmium plating. The forward lug of the left- and right-hand MLG rib 5 fitting of Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes that do not have Airbus Modification 32025 incorporated could also be susceptible to cracking. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG during landing.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57A1136, dated January 26, 2005 (for Model A319 and A320 series airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of both MLG. The service bulletin recommends contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions if any cracking is found.

The DGAC mandated Service Bulletin A320-57A1136, and a detailed visual inspection as defined in the visual procedures of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Nondestructive Testing Manual (NTM), Chapter 51-90-00, revision dated February 2003; and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-035, dated March 2, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, dated September 5, 2002, and Revision 01, dated August 28, 2003 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for modification of the lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand MLG and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The modification includes installing new bushings on the lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the MLG, and applying protective sealant to the bores and spotfaces of the lug. The related investigative and corrective actions include performing a visual inspection for corrosion/damage of the bores and spotfaces of the lug for the pintle pin bushings, and repair if corrosion/damage is found. Accomplishing this service bulletins eliminates the need to conduct the inspections described above.

These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are issuing this AD to require accomplishing the actions specified in Service Bulletin A320-57A1136 (for Model A319 and A320 series airplanes), described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the AD and Service Bulletin A320-57A1136.” This AD also requires repetitive detailed inspections for all airplanes for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the MLG, and repair if necessary. This AD also provides for optional terminating actions.

The service bulletin specifies that you may contact the manufacturer for repair instructions if cracks are found, but this AD requires you to repair any cracking by using a method that we or the DGAC (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this AD, a repair we or the DGAC approve is acceptable for compliance with this AD.

In this AD, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in the French airworthiness directive is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the AD.

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the optional modification of the lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand MLG, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the modification would require us to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-21433; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-079-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

(b) None.

We have received a report indicating that three cases of uncommanded inflation of door-mounted escape slide/rafts occurred on Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes. In one case, the uncommanded inflation of the door-mounted escape slide/raft resulted in injury to a member of the cabin crew. In the other two incidents, damage occurred to the lavatory, ceiling panels, door bustles, and the sidewalls. Inspections by the airplane manufacturer and the escape slide/raft supplier of the factory packs and overhauled packs revealed variability in the slack/tension condition of the firing cable of the slide/rafts. The slide/rafts are designed with slack in the firing cable. Investigation revealed that a “tight” (excessive tension) firing cable, in combination with changes that occur in the pack as the result of the in-service environment, could result in the tension on the firing cable increasing and activating the regulator valve. This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to maintenance personnel, passengers, and crew during otherwise normal operating conditions and could result in interference with evacuation of the airplane during an emergency, due to uncommanded inflation inside the airplane of a door-mounted escape slide/raft.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 767-25A0390, dated May 13, 2005. The ASB describes procedures for removing the cover (bustle) of the door-mounted escape slides/rafts, and performing a tension check to determine if there is excessive tension of the firing cable of the escape slides/rafts. Additionally, the ASB describes procedures for removing excessive tension of the firing cable by providing necessary slack in the firing cable, or removing the slide and rerouting the firing cable if necessary. The ASB also specifies that a general visual inspection or a records check may be accomplished to determine if certain Goodrich door-mounted escape slide/rafts are installed.

The ASB refers to Goodrich Alert Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295-25A356, dated May 11, 2005, as an additional source of service information.

Goodrich has also issued the following packing instructions for the slide/rafts: Goodrich Packing Instructions, Evacuation Slide/Raft, Document 501636, Revision G, dated May 16, 2005; Goodrich Packing Instructions, Evacuation Slide/Raft, LH, Document 501637, Revision E, dated May 16, 2005; and Goodrich Packing Instructions, Evacuation Slide/Raft, RH, Document 501638, Revision D, dated May 16, 2005.

The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent injury to maintenance personnel, passengers, and crew during otherwise normal operating conditions and to prevent interference with evacuation of the airplane during an emergency, due to uncommanded inflation of a door-mounted escape slide/raft. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-21240; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-104-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17354), proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitation section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the Dash 8 400 Series (Bombardier) Maintenance Requirements Manual to reduce the life limits of the main landing gear (MLG) orifice support tube, upper bearing, and piston plug; and to reduce the threshold for initiating repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the engine isolator brackets.

We have revised the applicability of the proposed AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 93 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD will affect about 21 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $1,365, or $65 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17375), proposed to require an inspection to determine the part number of the passenger service unit (PSU) panels for the PSU modification status, and corrective actions if applicable.

We have revised the applicability of the proposed AD to identify the model designation as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected model.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

This AD will affect about 61 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $6 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $20,191, or $331 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2004 (69 FR 58109), proposed to require modifying the frequency converters located in the closet assembly in the passenger compartment, and making various wiring changes in and between the closet assembly and forward purser work station. That action also proposed to require modifying the in-flight entertainment system prior to or concurrently with the modification of the frequency converters.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD from a single commenter.

The commenter states that the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Discussion section of the proposed AD is unclear as written, and asks that it be clarified. The commenter notes that the sentence specifies “Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.” The commenter states that the sentence should be changed to read “Therefore, 757-200 series airplanes with frequency converters may have an unsafe condition.”

We acknowledge the commenter's request for clarification of the Discussion section of the proposed AD; however, that section is not restated in this final rule. In addition, the certification review specified in the Discussion section of the proposed AD is of a Model 737-700C series airplane, and the second paragraph merely clarifies that the frequency converters on certain Model 757-200 series airplanes are identical to those on the affected Model 737-700C series airplanes.

The commenter states that the description for the number of airplanes specified in the first paragraph of the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD is unclear as written, and asks for clarification. The commenter notes that the first paragraph specifies “This proposed AD would affect about 4 airplanes of U.S. registry and 4 airplanes worldwide.” The commenter states that the paragraph should be changed to read “This proposed AD would affect 4 airplanes worldwide. All four are of U.S. registry.”

We agree with the commenter and have changed the subject paragraph for clarification.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

This AD affects 4 airplanes worldwide; all of the airplanes are of U.S. registry.

For airplanes listed in Group 1 of Service Bulletin 757-25-0255: The modification takes about 97 work hours (including access, close-up, and test), at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $10,710 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the modification for U.S. operators is $17,015 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in Group 2 of Service Bulletin 757-25-0255: The modification takes about 105 work hours (including access, close-up, and test), at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $10,956 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the modification for U.S. operators is $17,781 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in Group 1 of Service Bulletin 757-24-0093: The concurrent modification, if not previously done, takes about 49 work hours, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $5,315 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the modification for U.S. operators is $8,500 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain Boeing Model 747-200F and -400 series airplanes; Model 767-400ER series airplanes; and Model 777 series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55120), proposed to require replacing the frequency converter(s) used to supply power for utility outlets (for the galley, medical equipment, or personal computers) with modified frequency converter(s); and any other specified action and related concurrent actions, as necessary.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD.

One commenter asks “* * * why not write the AD against the part instead of the aircraft?” and suggests that listing the frequency converter by manufacturer and part number may allow detection of similar problems on other aircraft and possible parts manufacturer approved (PMA) alternative units.

We disagree with revising the applicability. PMA parts frequently have a part numbering scheme different from that of the original manufacturer. For this reason, writing the AD against the part number may not accurately identify the PMA parts. Should we become aware of PMA parts that have similar characteristics as those addressed in this AD, we would consider further rulemaking.

The FAA's practice regarding unsafe conditions that result from the installation of a particular part in specific makes and models of airplanes is to issue an AD that applies to the affected airplane models. In doing so, U.S. operators of those airplanes will be notified directly of the unsafe condition and the action required to correct it. While we assume that operators can identify the airplane models they operate, they may not be aware of specific items installed on those airplanes. Therefore, specifying the airplane models in the applicability as the subject of the AD prevents an operator's “unknowing failure to comply” with the AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

One commenter requests that certain Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes be added to the applicability of this AD. Boeing has published Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0334, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2003, which addresses the same unsafe condition on some Model 767-300 series airplanes that were also delivered with affected frequency converters.

We agree that the Model 767-300 series airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition. We inadvertently omitted the service bulletin in the proposed AD. However, we disagree with revising the applicability of this AD, because we are considering a separate rulemaking action for the Model 767-300 series airplanes. A notice of proposed rulemaking for the Model 767-300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2005 (70 FR 12986). If we revise the applicability of this AD to add Model 767-300 series airplanes, we would need to reissue this AD as a revised notice. In light of the time that would be needed to reissue the proposed AD, and in consideration of the amount of time that has already elapsed since we issued the original notice, we have determined that further delay of this AD is not appropriate.

One commenter requests that the phrase “continuous circuit” in the Summary section of the proposed AD be changed to “continuous current.” The commenter provides no reason/justification.

We agree that the word should be changed, because the word “circuit” is incorrectly used in the phrase. We have revised the final rule to use the word “current.”

One commenter requests that we change “55 amps” to “180% rated current” in the Discussion section of the proposed AD. The commenter states that the value of 55 amps is accurate only for installations that use a specific output (a 3.5 KVA, 115VAC rated output). For the series of converters used on Boeing airplanes, a hard short circuit fault on the output of the converter will produce a fault current that is approximately 180% of the nominal rated output current. Since Boeing installations use multiple converter part numbers with different rated outputs, the short circuit fault current will vary depending on the converter used.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. The hard short circuit fault condition will produce a continuous output current of approximately 170% to 200% of nominal current. However, since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue.

We provided a cost estimate in the proposed AD that used the cost of replacing converters under warranty, not the cost of replacing parts without a warranty. The cost impact information provided in the proposed AD is correct for parts that are still under warranty. However, we strive to provide a cost estimate that uses cost information for parts not under warranty. The cost of a replacement converter without a warranty is $1,800. We have revised the cost impact information in this final rule to include the revised part cost.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

This AD will affect about 147 airplanes worldwide. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

Currently, there are no affected Model 747-200F or -400 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, an affected airplane that is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future would be subject to the costs specified above for those airplanes.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

On March 3, 2005, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish four RITTR's in the Charlotte, NC, terminal area (70 FR 10346). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on this proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received in response to the NPRM. With the exception of editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the notice.

One commenter wrote in support of the proposal and suggested that, as more routes are developed at additional terminal areas, there will be a need for pilot training on this subject. The FAA is preparing information for publication in the Aeronautical Information Manual to explain RITTRs and their use by pilots.

A second commenter also wrote in support of the proposal but added that the FAA should publish guidance to allow aircraft operating under visual flight rules (VFR) to use these routes when transitioning through terminal airspace. The FAA does not agree and does not plan to formulate such guidance at this time. RITTRs were developed specifically to provide routing for GNSS-equipped aircraft, that are operating on an IFR flight plan, to transition through busy terminal areas. The fixes/waypoints used to define the routes do not have associated visual landmarks for reference by VFR pilots when navigating through the area. There are a number of programs already in place to assist VFR pilots in either avoiding or transitioning through Class B airspace or other airspace areas, where needed. These programs include: the Charted VFR Flyway Planning Chart Program, the Terminal Area VFR Route Program, and the VFR Waypoint Chart Program. These flyways, routes and waypoints, when designated, are depicted on the appropriate VFR Terminal Area Charts. VFR aircraft desiring to transit Class B airspace must obtain air traffic control (ATC) clearance to operate in Class B airspace. ATC may approve or deny requests from VFR aircraft to operate in or through Class B airspace based on controller workload, operational limitations and traffic conditions. In this respect, pilots of a suitably equipped VFR aircraft could request transit through the area along a RITTR track, but the request would be subject to ATC approval as described above.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing four RITTR's, designated T-200, T-201, T-202, and T-203, in the Charlotte, NC, terminal area. These routes will be depicted in blue on the appropriate IFR en route low altitude charts. RITTRs are low altitude RNAV routes designed to facilitate the expeditious movement of IFR overflight traffic around or through certain congested terminal airspace areas. The routes may be used by GNSS-equipped aircraft that are capable of filing flight plan equipment suffix “/G.” The FAA is taking this action to enhance safety and facilitate the more flexible and efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR aircraft transitioning through the Charlotte Class B airspace area.

Low altitude Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 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 routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

On March 28, 2005, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend R-2211 at Blair Lakes, AK (70 FR 15606). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. With the exception of editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the notice.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to modify R-2211 by raising the ceiling from 18,000 feet MSL to FL 310. The current restricted airspace at Blair Lakes is too small to allow aircrew training in high altitude weapons delivery tactics. The purpose of the expansion of R-2211 is to accommodate high altitude, high angle weapons delivery training to fulfill USAF training requirements.

Section 73.22 of 14 CFR part 73 was published in the FAA Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Special Use Airspace Areas consolidation dated January 27, 2005. The restricted area listed in this document will be published subsequently in the consolidation.

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. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with paragraph 311(i) FAA Order 1050.1, Polices and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

1. This Final Rule amends 18 CFR 375.307(f) to add a new subparagraph (4). The new provision parallels 18 CFR 375.307(k)(4), which delegates to the Director of the Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates the authority to assign to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), with the ALJ's assent, an uncontested interim electric rate motion calling for lower rates, pending the Commission's consideration of a settlement. This authority is needed in natural gas proceedings as well, in situations where the Commission receives an uncontested motion calling for an interim rate decrease in a proceeding that is already pending before an ALJ. This revision will allow for more efficient processing of settlements, which in turn will permit customers to receive the benefits of lower rates at an earlier time.

2. One further change is being made, to specify, in both the natural gas (new § 375.307(f)(4)) and electric (existing § 375.307(k)(4)) provisions, that the motion will be referred to the Chief ALJ. In some cases, a settlement may already have been certified by the time the interim motion is received. In such cases it will be necessary for the Chief ALJ to assign the matter to an ALJ.

3. This rule also permits the Director of the Office of External Affairs (Director), to subdelegate authority to carry out responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under the Commission's regulations, the Director has the primary responsibility for handling FOIA requests, including the responsibility to release information under FOIA, rule upon the applicability of FOIA exemptions, and grant or deny requests for fee waivers. See 18 CFR 388.108, 388.110 (2004). The current regulations, however, do not expressly permit the Director to subdelegate that responsibility to other officials with the Office of External Affairs. Id. ; 18 CFR 375.311 (2004). In most cases, the Commission allows officials to subdelegate authority delegated to them by the Commission. See generally 18 CFR part 375. This facilitates the efficient division of responsibilities within an office. Subdelegations must be made to a deputy, head of division, or comparable official. 18 CFR 375.301(b) (2004). To ensure efficiency in the handling of FOIA matters, the Commission is revising the Director's delegations, in Section 375.311, to permit subdelegation to a designee.

4. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 5 CFR part 1320.

5. This Final Rule contains no information reporting requirements, and is not subject to OMB approval.

6. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 1 Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 2 Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement that an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement be done. Included is an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions. 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5). This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.

7. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  3 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  4 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule concerns a matter of internal agency procedure and the Commission therefore certifies that it will not have such an impact. An analysis under the RFA is not required.

8. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.

9. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Records Information System (FERRIS). The full text of this document is available on FERRIS in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in FERRIS, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

10. User assistance is available for FERRIS and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from our Help line at (202) 502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371 Press 0, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov .

11. These regulations are effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register . In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Commission finds that good cause exists to make this Final Rule effective immediately. It concerns only a matter of internal operations and will not affect the rights of persons appearing before the Commission. There is therefore no reason to make it effective at a later time.

12. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule, because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights of non-agency parties.

13. The Commission is issuing this as a final rule without a period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and comment procedures are unnecessary where a rulemaking concerns only agency procedure and practice, or where the agency finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. This rule concerns only matters of agency procedure and will not significantly affect regulated entities or the general public.

In the Federal Register of February 28, 2005 (70 FR 9516), FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule for a 75-day period ending May 16, 2005. FDA stated that the effective date of the direct final rule would be on July 13, 2005, 60 days after the end of the comment period, unless any significant adverse comment was submitted to FDA during the comment period. FDA received 16 comments, 3 of which supported the plain language revisions and several of which requested further revisions or substantive changes to the medical device reporting rule. The agency did not receive any significant adverse comment on the plain language revisions.

22 CFR 120.1 describes inter alia the responsibilities of the several offices comprising the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The textual changes to Sec. 120.1 reflect the transfer of responsibility for the commodity jurisdiction procedure from the Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing to the Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy.

22 CFR 123.15 describes inter alia the monetary thresholds for export of major defense equipment, and the export of defense articles and services sold under contract that may take place only after DDTC notifies an exporter through the issuance of a license or other approval that Congress has not enacted a joint resolution prohibiting the export. Similarly, 22 CFR 124.11 describes the monetary thresholds for any technical assistance agreement or manufacturing license agreement providing for the manufacture abroad of significant military equipment on the United States Munitions List (USML), for the export of major defense equipment, and the export of defense articles and services sold under contract that shall be certified to Congress. Pursuant to Public Law 107-228, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, the threshold amounts for Congressional notice were adjusted in the following manner: (1) The threshold levels for member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Australia, Japan and New Zealand are established at $25 million for the export of major defense equipment sold under a contract and $100 million for the export of defense articles and services sold under contract; and (2) a threshold level of $1 million is established for proposed exports to all countries involving firearms controlled under Category I of the USML.

22 CFR 126.5 describes inter alia the modalities by which exporters, without a license issued by DDTC, may carry out permanent and temporary exports of defense articles to Canada, and temporary imports from Canada. The textual additions to 22 CFR 126.5 are designed to clarify for exporters the range of defense articles, related technical data, and defense services that will continue to require a license issued by the DDTC for export to or temporary import from Canada.

The list of items excluded from the provisions of Section 126.5 are outlined in paragraph (b). That list is amended in the following ways:

(1) The text of 126.5(b)(6) amended to reflect a change in the title of Category I of the USML.

(2) The text of 126.5(b)(10) is amended to clarify that all types of aircraft covered by Category VIII(a) of the USML require an export license.

(3) The text of 126.5(b)(13) is amended to reflect the fact that nuclear radiation measuring devices manufactured to military specifications are now controlled in Category XVI vice Category XIV of the USML.

(4) The text of 126.5(b)(18) is amended to reflect a change in the title of Category XVI of the USML.

(5) A new entry is made to the text of 126.5(b) to clarify that the exclusion from the exemption also embraces man-portable air defense systems, and their parts and components, and technical data for such systems that are controlled in Category IV of the USML. Other Category IV items already are captured by the provisions 126.5(b)(2) which covers all Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex Items.

22 CFR 127.12 describes inter alia procedures concerning voluntary disclosures by persons, firms, or organizations of violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The textual changes made to this section deal with the address to which such voluntary disclosures should be sent.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices: This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. It is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866; but has been reviewed internally by the Department of State to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of the consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.

Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed: (1) A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to part 4022), and (3) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to part 4022).

Accordingly, this amendment (1) adds to Appendix B to part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during July 2005, (2) adds to Appendix B to part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during July 2005, and (3) adds to Appendix C to part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during July 2005.

For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 3.60 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for June 2005) of 0.10 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged.

The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 2.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for June 2005.

For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022).

The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect, as accurately as possible, current market conditions.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during July 2005, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

The proposed rule was published on February 25, 2005, at 70 FR 9260-9261. One public comment was received where the commenter expressed a number of concerns that the rule violates the spirit and letter of the Privacy Act. The commenter observes that it is objectionable for the Department to borrow exemptions from other systems of records. We disagree. The public policy that dictates the need for exempting records is based on the need to protect the contents of the records in the system—not the location of the records. The record does not lose its exempt status when recompiled in another system of records if the purposes underlying the exemption of the original record pertain to the recompilation as well. The commenter expresses concern that adoption of the rule will enable the Department to shield documents that heretofore have been made available to individuals and will prevent citizens and lawful residents from obtaining access to records about themselves. We disagree. As provided by law, the rule provides a basis for the Department to exempt specified records from certain provisions of the Act. It does not act to suspend any rights the individual otherwise may be entitled to under the law. To the extent the records were available to the individual formerly or to the extent the individual could obtain access to those records previously, the individual still will be able to obtain/access the records. But to the extent the records were not obtainable or not accessible before, the rule will permit the Department to continue to protect the records as is contemplated by the rule for the original records. And finally, the commenter observes that the Department is attempting to create a new exemption, a prerogative that only Congress possesses. We disagree. The Department is not establishing a new exemption. Rather, within the framework of existing law, the Department is adopting a rule that will protect the records to the same extent the records are now protected by a rule that has been adopted for the system of records from which the record was lawfully obtained.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose no information requirements beyond the Department of Defense and that the information collected within the Department of Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the Privacy Act of 1974.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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.

On April 26, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations: Annual Offshore Super Series Boat Race, Fort Myers Beach, FL in the Federal Register (70 FR 21376). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Offshore Super Series will sponsor an offshore powerboat race on the near-shore waters of Fort Myers Beach, Florida. The annual event will be held on the second consecutive Saturday and Sunday in June from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The event will host approximately 50 participant vessels that travel up to speeds of 130 mph and approximately 300 spectator craft. This regulation is needed to provide for the safety of life on the Navigable waters of the United States during the Annual Offshore Super Series Boat Race in the vicinity of the racecourse. The anticipated concentration of spectator and participant vessels associated with the event poses a safety concern that is addressed in this special local regulation.

No comments were received for this rule.

This regulation includes a regulated area around the racecourse that will prohibit all non-participant vessels and persons from entering the regulated area annually from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the second consecutive Saturday and Sunday of June. The regulation will only permit anchoring of spectator vessels seaward of a designated spectator line. All spectator craft will be required to remain seaward of a designated spectator line. Although the regulation allows continuous entry and exit to Matanzas Pass Channel for the duration of the event, the northern portion of the regulated area is in very close proximity to the channel entrance. In order to avoid incursions into the northern portion of the regulated area by vessels avoiding collision due to traffic congestion in the channel, the rule will require vessels entering and exiting Matanzas Pass to proceed cautiously and take early action to avoid close-quarters situations until finally past and clear of the regulated area. This regulation is intended to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States for event participants and for mariners traveling in the vicinity of the near-shore waters of Fort Myers Beach Florida.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The regulation will be in effect for only a limited time in an area where vessel traffic is limited and vessels will still be allowed to enter and exit through Matanzas Pass Channel.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit near to shore at Fort Myers Beach, FL in the vicinity of Matanzas Pass annually from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the second consecutive Saturday and Sunday in June. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since it would only be in effect for a limited time in an area where vessel traffic is limited and vessels will still be allowed to enter and exit through Matanzas Pass Channel.

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 a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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 create 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 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 rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. As a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a boat race, this rule satisfies the requirements of paragraph (34)(h). Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

The use of “we,” “us,” or “our” in this document refers to EPA.

On February 1, 2005, EPD submitted a request to redesignate the severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area of Atlanta, Georgia, to attainment, and a request for EPA approval of a Georgia SIP revision containing a 10-year maintenance plan for the Atlanta area, including new MVEB for the year 2015. In addition, Georgia requested that EPA make a determination that certain SIP submittal requirements related to attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress (RFP) are not applicable requirements for the purposes of this redesignation request because the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on ambient air ozone season monitoring data for the 3-year period including the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. On April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), EPA published a proposed rule proposing to take four actions on these requests: to find that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; to find that certain attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, along with other related requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, are not applicable to the Atlanta area for so long as it continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve the 10-year maintenance plan, including the 2015 MVEB; and to approve the 1-hour ozone redesignation request for the Atlanta area.

In a separate action, effective June 14, 2005, EPA granted final approval on two of the four actions proposed for approval on April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495). In that separate action, EPA determined that the Atlanta severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and that certain CAA requirements are no longer applicable, so long as the Atlanta area continues to maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, in another separate action taken on May 9, 2005, (70 FR 24310), EPA published a direct final rule approving revisions to Georgia's Rules for Air Quality to satisfy the additional requirements for severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The comment period for the May 9, 2005, action ended on June 8, 2005, and EPA received no adverse comment.

EPA is granting final approval of the remaining two actions proposed for approval on April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495). Specifically, EPA is approving Georgia's request for redesignation and thereby approving a change in the legal designation of the Atlanta area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving Georgia's 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision for the Atlanta area because the plan complies with the requirements of section 175A of the Act. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Atlanta area in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years.

Finally, for transportation purposes, EPA is finalizing its adequacy determination for the new 2015 MVEB. EPA has determined that the MVEB for the year 2015 are adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

Section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act allows a Governor to initiate the redesignation process for an area to apply for attainment status. On February 1, 2005, Georgia requested redesignation of the Atlanta area's severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment status to attainment status and requested EPA approval of the 10-year maintenance plan for the Atlanta area. Today, EPA is approving the 1-hour ozone redesignation request and the 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision. EPA's approval of the 1-hour ozone redesignation request is based on our determination that the Atlanta area has met the five criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1990 CAA Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide five specific criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. These five criteria are: (1) The area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the Act; and (5) the area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. EPA's analysis of the five criteria as applied to the Atlanta area is discussed in detail in the April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), proposed rule.

With regard to criteria 1, EPA has already determined, in a separate action effective June 14, 2005, that the Atlanta severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. With regard to criteria 2 and 5, EPA has determined that the Atlanta area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA, and that the area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act.

Specifically, EPA has analyzed the Georgia SIP and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). Title 40 CFR 52.570, subpart L, contains the historical record of the Georgia SIP. The Georgia SIP contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing ones; provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting.

In addition, EPA has determined that the Atlanta area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. At the time of the proposed rule on April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), EPA proposed to find that the Atlanta area had met most of the applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act. However, in the proposed rule, we stated that EPA had not yet approved certain rule revisions pertaining to section 182(a)(2)(A) and section 182(d) of the Act, and that we would take action on these rule revisions separately and prior to any final rule on the redesignation request. On May 9, 2005, (70 FR 24310), EPA published a direct final rule approving revisions to Georgia's Rules for Air Quality to satisfy the additional requirements for severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas required by section 182(d) of the Act. The comment period for this direct final rule ended on June 8, 2005, and EPA received no adverse comment. These revisions satisfy the additional requirements for severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Also, on April 12, 2005, (70 FR 19031), EPA proposed approval of Georgia's Severe Area Vehicle Miles Traveled SIP submittal which was for the purpose of offsetting any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as required by the Act. In a separate action, effective June 14, 2005, EPA granted final approval to this submittal.

In our April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), proposed rule, EPA also indicated that we had not yet approved Georgia's reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule corrections, which are required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act. This was an error. EPA approved Georgia's RACT rule corrections on October 13, 1992, (57 FR 46780), effective December 14, 1992.

Finally, EPA determined, in a separate action effective June 14, 2005, that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1) of the CAA), along with certain other related requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, including the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measures needed to mitigate a state's failure to achieve RFP toward, and attainment of, a NAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and rate of progress (ROP) requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the Atlanta area. Therefore, with regard to redesignation criteria 2 and 5, EPA finds that the Atlanta area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA, and that the area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act.

EPA also finds that redesignation criteria 3 and 4 have been met for the Atlanta area. For the reasons discussed in the April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), proposed rule, EPA has determined that the air quality improvement in the Atlanta area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions. In addition, our April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20495), proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of EPA's reasons for its proposed approval of the Atlanta area's 10-year maintenance plan. EPA notes that in the proposed rule, we announced our preliminary conclusion that the Atlanta area's maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard is indicated under either future fuel scenario (use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) or use of only the Georgia gasoline currently in place). We also announced our intention to confirm this preliminary conclusion prior to taking final action on the redesignation request and approval of the 10-year maintenance plan. As fully discussed in the Response to Comments section of this final rule, EPA has confirmed our preliminary conclusion that the Atlanta area will maintain the 1-hour ozone standard throughout the 10-year maintenance plan period by using only Georgia gasoline or by using RFG that meets the low-sulfur requirements in Georgia's SIP. For the reasons stated in our proposed rule on the 10-year maintenance plan and based on our confirmation concerning future fuel scenarios for the Atlanta area, EPA is finalizing its approval of Georgia's 10-year maintenance plan SIP submittal for the Atlanta area.

EPA's approval of Georgia's 10-year maintenance plan SIP submittal for the Atlanta area, includes our approval of the new 2015 MVEB contained within the maintenance plan. The 2015 MVEB for nitrogen oxide (NO X ) in the Atlanta area is 121.88 tons per ozone season weekday (tpd). The 2015 MVEB for volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the Atlanta area is 83.42 tpd.

Approval of the Atlanta area redesignation request changes the official designation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for the State of Georgia, Atlanta Area, from nonattainment to attainment. It also incorporates into the Georgia SIP a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and NO X MVEB for 2015 for the Atlanta area.

Through this rule, EPA is providing notice that it has determined that the 2015 MVEB for VOC and NO X , as contained in the 10-year maintenance plan, meet the substantive criteria for “adequacy,” as set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and are adequate for purposes of transportation conformity. The availability of the 10-year maintenance plan SIP submission containing these 2015 MVEB was announced for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web page on January 24, 2005, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2015 MVEB for the Atlanta area closed on February 24, 2005, and no adverse comments were received.

For transportation plan analysis years that involve the year 2014 or before, the applicable MVEB for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity analyses will be the 2004 MVEB for VOC (160.80 tpd) and for NO X (318.24 tpd). For transportation plan analysis years that involve the year 2015 or beyond, the applicable MVEB for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity analyses will be the 2015 MVEB for VOC (83.42 tpd) and for NO X (121.88 tpd).

EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations (approval of redesignation and 10-year maintenance plan, including the 2015 MVEB) to become effective June 14, 2005, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the determinations, which relieve the Atlanta area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The expedited effective date for these actions is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.”

A redesignation to attainment relieves the Atlanta area from certain CAA requirements that otherwise would apply to it. The relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, Georgia's relief from these obligations provides good cause to make this rule effective June 14, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule relieves obligations rather than imposes obligations, affected parties, such as the State of Georgia, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

EPA received one comment letter from the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA).

Comment: The RFA commented that EPA should not approve the proposed maintenance plan because: “Georgia's submission seeking to demonstrate that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard will continue to be maintained * * * relies on emissions data based on use of RFG [reformulated gas], while at the same time Georgia is trying to avoid use of RFG in Atlanta. * * * Georgia did not model the emissions for 2005 to 2015 based on use of Georgia Gas. Therefore, EPA has no basis to support a finding that Georgia Gas is sufficient to establish maintenance as required under the Act. EPA cannot approve a redesignation request which is based on use of Georgia Gas without a maintenance demonstration using Georgia Gas only. EPA must confirm such modeling and make it available for public comment prior to approving any redesignation. Until this demonstration is made, Georgia's application does not satisfy the criteria for redesignation established in section 107(d)(3)(E) and EPA cannot redesignate Atlanta to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard.” The commenter included two attachments to its comment: EPA's September 30, 2004, letter to Carol Couch, Director of Georgia EPD denying Georgia's request to waive the RFG requirement for Atlanta with EPA's “Analysis of and Action on Georgia's Request for a Waiver of the Reformulated Gasoline Program” (EPA420-S-04-006, October 2004); and “Comments on Georgia's Petition for an RFG Waiver in Atlanta: Technical Analysis” by Gary Z. Whitten, Ph.D., dated August 24, 2004.

Response: In EPA's proposed rule for this action on April 20, 2005 (70 FR 20495), EPA announced its preliminary conclusion that maintenance is indicated under either future fuel scenario ( i.e. , using RFG or Georgia gasoline currently in place) for the Atlanta area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Since the use of low-sulfur Georgia gasoline is a SIP requirement, Georgia correctly concluded that RFG sold in the Atlanta area would have to meet the low-sulfur requirement from the Georgia SIP as well as RFG requirements. EPA's preliminary conclusion that the Atlanta area would maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by using Georgia gasoline or RFG that met the low-sulfur requirement for Georgia gasoline in the SIP was based on EPA's “Analysis of and Action on Georgia's Request for a Waiver of the Reformulated Gasoline Program” (EPA420-S-04-006, October 2004) that EPA conducted in its review of Georgia's petition request to be relieved of the RFG requirement and which the commenter attached to its comment. 1 EPA's analysis in the proposal was based on Georgia's modeling using RFG, its predictions of a declining mobile source emissions inventory post 2002, along with the modeling prepared by EPA comparing emissions between RFG and Georgia gasoline in 2005. The preliminary conclusion from the analysis in the proposed rule focused on predicting the emissions that would be expected over time with Georgia gasoline only. In the April 20, 2005, proposed rule, EPA announced our intention to confirm this preliminary conclusion prior to taking final action on the redesignation request and approval of the maintenance plan. After publication of the proposed rule, EPD ran a full MOBILE model run using only Georgia gasoline. This post-proposal analysis addresses the same issue that EPA addressed in the proposed rule, using a more direct modeling of the emissions at issue, and confirms EPA's preliminary conclusion in the proposed rule that the area will maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS with Georgia gasoline only throughout the initial maintenance period, as required by section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. Since these data confirm EPA's preliminary analysis, EPA does not believe taking additional comment on this point is necessary.

The commenter also attached a memorandum from Gary Z. Whitten, “Comments on Georgia's Petition for an RFG Waiver in Atlanta: Technical Analysis” that was written to refute the State's assertion in its waiver request that utilization of federal RFG will adversely affect air quality in the Atlanta area. The commenter relies on Dr. Whitten's memo to support their argument that Georgia needs to model Georgia gasoline as part of a maintenance demonstration. As noted above, that modeling has been done by Georgia EPD. To the extent the commenter relies on Dr. Whitten's memo to indicate possible concerns with the modeling of Georgia gasoline, EPA notes that Dr. Whitten's comments basically address the inadequacy of prior modeling done by Georgia to compare RFG to Georgia gasoline, and raise concerns that Georgia underestimated various benefits of RFG in this comparison. The issue here, however, is the benefits of Georgia gasoline, and any claimed underestimation of the benefits of RFG compared to Georgia gasoline is irrelevant to determining whether Georgia would maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS with Georgia gasoline. In that context, EPA notes that the recent MOBILE modeling of Georgia gasoline performed by Georgia, uses sulfur, reid vapor pressure (RVP) and oxygen levels that are similar to the levels EPA determined appropriate in its analysis of Georgia only gasoline, as part of EPA's evaluation of Georgia's request for a waiver of the RFG program. 2 Further discussion of the levels EPA used in its evaluation of Georgia only gasoline can be found in EPA's “Analysis of Emission Impacts of Implementation of Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) in the Atlanta Area,” which can be found in the docket for this rule.

Below are tables that show the results of the full MOBILE model run using Georgia low-sulfur gasoline only, which demonstrates that the emissions levels of NO X and VOC for the period 2005-2015 are below those for the base year ( i.e. , 2002), and thus indicate continued maintenance of the 1-hour standard. These tables were provided by the Georgia EPD during the public comment period on EPA's proposal as a supplement to their maintenance plan demonstration which accounted for a gasoline during the maintenance period which met the requirements of Georgia gasoline and RFG. With the supplemental information, the State has demonstrated continued maintenance for either a RFG or Georgia gasoline scenario. It should be noted that the mobile sector NO X emissions are projected to be the same for either scenario because of the federal requirement for all gasoline to meet the low-sulfur standards that are being phased in beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2006.

By taking this final action, EPA is not waiving the requirement to use RFG in the Atlanta severe 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area. The use of RFG in severe ozone nonattainment areas is required by section 211 of the Act, and the applicability of this requirement to Atlanta is currently in litigation before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA believes that the redesignation request and approval of the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan are separate issues from the applicability of the RFG requirement for the Atlanta area, and thus the redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan SIP submittal can be approved under the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) since the data indicate that the Atlanta area will maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015 with either RFG or Georgia gasoline. EPA will take appropriate action in the future with respect to the applicability of RFG to the Atlanta area if necessary.

Comment: The commenter also stated in a footnote that Georgia omitted data from a 12th monitor that showed increasing emissions from 2000-2002 and recorded a violation  3 in 2002.

Response: Although, we do not construe this to be a comment with regard to EPA's determination of attainment (because it was provided in the context of the 10-year maintenance plan for the Atlanta area), we provided the following clarification in our separate final attainment determination rule. “In response, EPA notes that there was a special purpose monitor (SPM) in Cherokee County, Georgia, (Waleska site) that operated from 1999-2002. 4 This monitor recorded only one exceedance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during this period that occurred in 2002. This one exceedance does not constitute a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The monitor at the Waleska site was terminated by the State due to siting issues (potential interference by trees and a school's chemistry laboratory). The Waleska site was designated a SPM, and for this type of monitor the states are not required to obtain EPA concurrence for its termination.

Georgia's request for redesignation and a determination of attainment did include data from all ozone monitors in the Atlanta area with complete data for the period of 2002-2004, showing no violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, there were no recorded violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS omitted from Georgia's redesignation request as implied by the commentator.”

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 (Public Law 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) 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. By June 14, 2005, EPA will submit a report containing these rules 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 June 14, 2005. 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. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 15, 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).)

On January 6, 2005, the Commission released a Report and Order, a summary of which was published in the Federal Register . See 70 FR 4775, January 31, 2005. Although the rule changes in the Report and Order became effective on March 2, 2005, §§ 25.221(c), 25.221(e), and 25.222(c) contained modified information collection requirements, which required approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The information collection requirements were approved by OMB on May 25, 2005. See OMB No. 3060-1061.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 05-692, adopted March 24, 2005 and released March 25, 2005. Copies of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may also contact BCPI at their Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1-800-378-3160.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This Order can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/canspam.html.

In this document, the Commission amends its rules addressing unwanted mobile service commercial messages to cross reference new definitions adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In adopting rules to implement portions of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act or Act), the Commission directed the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) to revise the regulations to reflect updated or amended definitions in the FTC's rules. The Act gives the FTC responsibility for making the ultimate determination of when electronic mail is to be considered “commercial” and for refining the definitions of “transactional or relationship” messages.

On December 16, 2004, the FTC adopted its final CAN-SPAM definitions and implementation rules, defining the criteria for determining whether an electronic message is “commercial” in nature, and refining the definition of “transactional or relationship” messages. This definition rule became effective on March 28, 2005. Consequently, we amend our CAN-SPAM rules to reflect the FTC's newly adopted definitions codified at 16 CFR 316.1-316.5 and cross reference those definitions in our rules so that our rules will reflect any further revisions the FTC makes.

Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 222, 227 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 222, 227, and 303(r), and the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, Public Law 108-187, 117 Statute 2699, 15 U.S.C. 7701-7713, 18 U.S.C. 1037 and 28 U.S.C. 994, and the authority delegated to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau in the Commission's CAN-SPAM Implementation Order, FCC 04-194 (adopted August 4, 2004), this Order is adopted, and part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.3100, is amended.

The Commission will not send a copy of this Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability.

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Order , FCC 04-292, adopted on December 20, 2004, and released on December 23, 2004. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the FCC's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov . Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365 or at bmillin@fcc.gov .

1. The major decisions in the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order are as follows:

• For licensees in the Industrial/Business Radio Pool operating in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands, we affirm the Second Report and Order's (68 FR 42296, July 17, 2003) January 1, 2013 deadline for migration to 12.5 kHz technology, or a technology that achieves the narrowband equivalent of one channel per 12.5 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data) if the bandwidth for transmissions specified in the modification application is greater than 12.5 kHz.

• For Public Safety Radio Pool licensees operating PLMR services in the same bands, we also establish a January 1, 2013 deadline for migration to 12.5 kHz technology, or a technology that achieves the narrowband equivalent of one channel per 12.5 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data) if the bandwidth for transmissions specified in the modification application is greater than 12.5 kHz.

2. We revise the interim dates established in the Second Report and Order as follows:

• Applications for new operations using 25 kHz channels will be accepted until January 1, 2011. After January 1, 2011, applications for new operations using a bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz will be accepted only to the extent that the equipment meets the spectrum efficiency standard of one channel per 12.5 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data).

• Applications for modification of operations that expand the authorized contour of an existing station using 25 kHz channels will be accepted until January 1, 2011. After January 1, 2011, applications for modification of operations that expand the authorized contour of an existing station will be accepted only to the extent that the equipment meets the spectrum efficiency standard of one channel per 12.5 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data) if the bandwidth for transmissions specified in the modification application is greater than 12.5 kHz.

• Manufacture and importation of any 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz band equipment operating on a channel bandwidth up to 25 kHz will be permitted until January 1, 2011. After January 1, 2011, manufacture and importation of any 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz band equipment operating on a channel bandwidth greater than 12.5 kHz will be accepted only to the extent that the equipment meets the spectrum efficiency standard of one channel per 12.5 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data).

3. We revise our rules to permit applications for certification of equipment received on or after January 1, 2005 operating with a 25 kHz bandwidth, to the extent that the equipment meets the spectrum efficiency standard of one channel per 6.25 kHz of channel bandwidth (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data). However, we stay the January 1, 2005 deadline with respect to certification of equipment in the Order , pending resolution of the issues raised in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .

4. We revise our rules to exempt part 90 paging-only frequencies from the narrowbanding requirements.

5. For Commission licensees operating in the Federal Government bands 150.05-150.8 MHz, 162.0125-173.2 MHz, and 173.4-174 MHz, we recognize that a separate ongoing proceeding—ET Docket No. 04-243—is addressing whether different narrowbanding requirements are needed to account for the Federal Government's own narrowbanding plans in those bands. Accordingly, we recognize that the decisions we adopt herein are subject to further modification with respect to those bands and defer decisions with respect to those bands where appropriate.

6. The Order does not contain any new or modified information collection.

7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order small entities. The Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is set forth below. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice and Order , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

8. The Commission will send a copy of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) was incorporated in the Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Second R&O and Second Further Notice) in WT Docket 99-87. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making . In view of the fact that we have adopted further rule amendments in this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order , we have included this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA). This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) conforms to the RFA.

10. The Third Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts rules to promote the transition to narrowband technology in bands 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz. Specifically, we amend our rules to impose a deadline for migration to 12.5 kHz technology for both Public Safety Radio Pool and Industrial/Business Radio Pool licensees operating Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) systems on those bands, beginning January 1, 2013. In addition, we amend our rules to prohibit the certification of any equipment capable of operating at one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum, i.e. , multi-mode equipment that includes a 25 kHz mode, beginning January 1, 2011. We also prohibit the manufacture and importation of 25 kHz equipment (including multi-mode equipment that can operate on a 25 kHz bandwidth) beginning January 1, 2011. We will permit all licensees operating on these bands to modify existing systems, including modifications that expand coverage area, with 25 kHz equipment until January 1, 2011. No later than December 31, 2009 the Commission will issue a Public Notice of the impending January 1, 2011 deadline for filing new applications and modifications of any systems utilizing 25 kHz channels. This notice will also inform the public of the frequency coordinators cutoff date for accepting said applications. The Public Notice will also serve as a reminder that all Public Safety Radio Pool and Industrial/Business Radio Pool licensees are required to migrate to 12.5 kHz by January 1, 2013. These actions will effect a transition to a narrowband channel plan. The resulting gain in efficiency will ease congestion on the PLMRS channels in these bands.

11. No comments or reply comments were filed in direct response to the FRFA. The Commission has, however, reviewed the general comments that may impact small businesses. Much of the potential impact on small businesses arises from the mandatory migration to 12.5 kHz technology beginning on January 1, 2011, the ban on importation and manufacture of 25 kHz equipment after January 1, 2011 and the freeze on new 25 kHz applications. The costs associated with replacement of current systems were cited in opposition to mandatory conversion proposals.

12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.

13. The rule changes effectuated by this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order apply to licensees and applicants of private land mobile frequencies in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands, and to manufacturers of radio equipment.

14. Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation and public service activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes that operate in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission had not developed, nor would it be possible to develop, a definition of small entities specifically applicable to PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business area. The Commission's fiscal year 1994 annual report indicates that, at the end of fiscal year 1994, there were 1,087,276 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Further, because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, these rules could potentially impact every small business in the U.S.

15. Public Safety. Public Safety Radio Pool services include police, fire, local governments, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. The SBA rules contain a definition for small radiotelephone (wireless) companies, which encompass business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more that 1,500 persons. There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees within these services. Governmental entities as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services. The RFA also includes small governmental entities as a part of the regulatory flexibility analysis. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, the Commission estimates that 81,600 (96 percent) are small entities.

16. Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the SBA's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small entities.

17. This Third Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts rules to promote the transition to narrowband technology for private land mobile licensees, in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands. In particular, applications for operations on 25 kHz equipment will be accepted until January 1, 2011. We will permit all licensees operating on these bands to modify existing systems, including modifications that expand coverage area, with 25 kHz equipment until January 1, 2011. No later than December 31, 2009 the Commission will issue a Public Notice of the impending January 1, 2011 deadline for filing new applications and modifications of any systems utilizing 25 kHz channels. This notice will also inform the public of the frequency coordinators cutoff date for accepting said applications. The Public Notice will also serve as a reminder that all Public Safety Radio Pool and Industrial/Business Radio Pool licensees are required to migrate to 12.5 kHz by January 1, 2013. Further, this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order amends our current rules to prohibit the importation or manufacture of 25 kHz-only equipment beginning on January 1, 2011. All equipment utilized on or after January 1, 2013 must utilize a maximum channel bandwidth of 12.5 kHz, or meet the narrowband efficiency standard of one channel per 6.25 kHz (voice) or 4800 bits per second per 6.25 kHz (data).

18. The FRFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

19. The Commission adopted rules in this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order upon consideration of the economic burden on small businesses. For instance, many commenters supported adoption of rules that would require conversion of Industrial/Business Radio Pool licensees to 12.5 kHz equipment as early as January 1, 2008. Such a proposal fails to give any consideration to the amortization and life-span of current equipment and the resources available to small entities. Rather than require small business licensees to convert its system to 12.5 kHz or equivalent technology beginning on January 1, 2008, we retain our current rules governing mandatory migration to 12.5 kHz or equivalent technology until January 1, 2013 for Industrial/Business Radio Pool systems. Likewise, for Public Safety Radio Pool systems, many commenters supported adoption of rules that would require conversion of Public Safety Radio Pool systems to 12.5 kHz equipment as early as January 1, 2013. In recognizing the need for clarity and uniformity in a single final migration date, and in consideration of the development and readiness of public safety operators in general, we amend our rules to accelerate the mandatory migration to 12.5 kHz or equivalent technology to January 1, 2013 for INDUSTRIAL/Business Radio Pool PLMR systems. We rejected a phased approach that would have burdened licensees to determine which market and which date applied to them. We also rejected an approach that would assign different migration dates based on definitional concepts of urban or rural. Although we employ intermediary steps to promote migration to 12.5 kHz equipment, we believe that delaying the effective dates of these interim measures closer to the final migration date adopted herein will best facilitate a complete and seamless migration to 12.5 kHz narrowband equipment. We declined to initiate a plan at this time to mandate a further migration to narrowband equipment based on a 6.25 kHz standard as premature. Exemption from coverage of the rule changes for small businesses would frustrate the purpose of the rule, i.e. , migration to more efficient spectrum use, and facilitate continued inefficient use of spectrum.

20. The Commission will send a copy of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, including this SFRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1) (A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, including this SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order and SFRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

21. None.

22. Pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302, and 303, and §§ 1.421 and 1.425 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.425, it is ordered that the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order is hereby adopted.

23. It is further ordered that parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's rules are amended as set forth in Appendix B, and that these rules shall be effective July 15, 2005.

24. It is further ordered that the stay of 47 CFR. 90.209(b)(6), see FCC 03-306, 69 FR 17959, April 6, 2004, shall expire July 15, 2005.

25. It is further ordered that the January 1, 2005, deadline in 47 CFR 90.203(j)(4) and (j)(5) is stayed effective upon the release of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order pending resolution of the Petition to Defer filed by Motorola, Inc., Kenwood U.S.A. Corporation, and EFJohnson Company, on July 24, 2004.

26. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order including the Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.