The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and, thus, delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE201.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On October 26, 2000, Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. applied for a type certificate for the M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 models. The M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 models are powered by one reciprocating engine equipped with an electronic engine control system with full authority capability in place of the hydromechanical control system.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. must show that Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 meet the applicable provisions of Part 3, Civil Air Regulations, effective May 15, 1956 as amended by 3-1 through 3-5; the following 14 CFR part 23 regulations at Amendment 23-55 that do not have equivalent rules in CAR 3: §§ 23.853(e)(f), 23.943, 23.1091, 23.1125, 23.1305, 23.1337, 23.863, 23.955, 23.1093, 23.1143, 23.1309, 23.1351, 23.865, 23.961, 23.1103, 23.1163, 23.1311, 23.1353(h), 23.903(f), 23.997, 23.1107, 23.1181, 23.1321, 23.1361, 23.909, 23.1043, 23.1121, 23.1182, 23.1322, 23.1365, 23.939(b), 23.1047, 23.1123, 23.1183, 23.1331; 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36-24; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this and other rulemaking actions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e. , 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which they are issued. Should the type certificate be amended later to include any other models that incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other models under the provisions of § 21.101.

The Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 airplanes will use an engine that includes an electronic control system with full engine authority capability.

Many advanced electronic systems are prone to either upsets or damage, or both, at energy levels lower than analog systems. The increasing use of high power radio frequency emitters mandates requirements for improved high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) protection for electrical and electronic equipment. Since the electronic engine control system used on the Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 will perform critical functions, provisions for protection from the effects of HIRF fields should be considered and, if necessary, incorporated into the airplane design data. The FAA policy contained in Notice 8110.71, dated April 2, 1998, establishes the HIRF energy levels that airplanes will be exposed to in service. The guidelines set forth in this Notice are the result of an Aircraft Certification Service review of existing policy on HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the ARAC Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group (EEHWG). The EEHWG adopted a set of HIRF environment levels in November 1997 that were agreed upon by the FAA, JAA, and industry participants. As a result, the HIRF environments in this notice reflect the environment levels recommended by this working group. This notice states that a full authority digital engine control is an example of a system that should address the HIRF environments.

Even though the control system will be certificated as part of the engine, the installation of an engine with an electronic control system requires evaluation due to the possible effects on or by other airplane systems ( e.g. , radio interference with other airplane electronic systems, shared engine and airplane power sources). The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic systems, are contained in § 23.1309. However, when § 23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic control systems for engines was not envisioned; therefore, the § 23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as part of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). Also, electronic control systems often require inputs from airplane data and power sources and outputs to other airplane systems ( e.g. , automated cockpit powerplant controls such as mixture setting). Although the parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309, the integral nature of systems such as these makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the system without including the engine portion of the system. However, § 23.1309(f)(1) again prevents complete evaluation of the installed airplane system since evaluation of the engine system's effects is not required.

Therefore, special conditions are proposed for the Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 to provide HIRF protection and to evaluate the installation of the electronic engine control system for compliance with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through (e) at Amendment 23-46.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230. Should Maule Aerospace Technology, Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the M-7-230, M-7-230C, and M-9-230 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

History

On Wednesday June 22, 2005, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to establish a Class E surface area and to modify other Class E airspace at Storm Lake, IA (70 FR 19027). The proposal was to establish a Class E surface area at Storm Lake, IA. It was also to modify the Class E5 airspace area to bring it into compliance with FAA directives. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) establishes Class E airspace designated as a surface area for an airport at Storm Lake, IA. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Storm Lake Municipal Airport. Weather observations will be provided by an Automatic Weather Observing/Reporting System (AWOS) and communications will be direct with Fort Dodge Automated Flight Service Station.

This rule also revises the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Storm Lake, IA. An examination of this Class E airspace area for Storm Lake, IA revealed noncompliance with FAA directives. This corrects identified discrepancies by decreasing the width of the southeast extension from 2.6 miles to 2.5 miles each side of the 167° bearing from Storm Lake NDB and creating an extension within 2.5 miles each side of the 357° bearing from the Storm Lake NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the airport, defining airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing instrument approach procedures to Storm Lake Municipal Airport and bringing the airspace area into compliance with FAA directives. Both areas will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 15, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations 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 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it contains aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Storm Lake Municipal Airport.

Under section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), producers of real or tangible personal property and resellers of real or personal property must capitalize the direct costs and a proper share of the indirect costs of such property. Indirect costs include indirect labor costs, overhead, and service costs. Service costs are indirect costs that can be identified specifically with an administrative or support department. Service costs consist of capitalizable service costs, deductible service costs, and mixed service costs. Capitalizable service costs are service costs that directly benefit, or are incurred by reason of, a production or resale activity. Deductible service costs are service costs that do not directly benefit, or are not incurred by reason of, a production or resale activity. Mixed service costs are service costs that are partially allocable to production or resale activities and partially allocable to non-production or non-resale activities.

Although section 263A requires capitalization of indirect costs, the statute generally does not set forth methods for allocating indirect costs, including mixed service costs. Instead, in accordance with the legislative history of the section, the regulations under section 263A generally provide that indirect costs are to be allocated to property using detailed or specific (facts-and-circumstances) cost allocation methods, including a specific identification method, the standard cost method, and methods using burden rates. The regulations further provide that allocations of mixed service costs are to be made on the basis of a factor or relationship that reasonably relates such costs with the benefit provided. To alleviate the administrative burdens of using these detailed or specific methods, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service developed simplified methods. In particular, the simplified production method provided by § 1.263A-2(b) determines aggregate amounts of additional section 263A costs allocable to produced “eligible property.” Additional section 263A costs are those costs, other than interest, that were not capitalized under a taxpayer's method of accounting immediately prior to the effective date of section 263A, but that are required to be capitalized under section 263A. In addition, the final regulations provide a simplified method, the simplified service cost method provided by § 1.263A-1(h), for determining capitalizable mixed service costs incurred during the taxable year with respect to “eligible property.”

On March 30, 1987, temporary regulations under section 263A were published in the Federal Register (TD 8131, 1987-1 C.B. 98, [52 FR 10052]). The temporary regulations limited the availability of the simplified production method and the simplified service cost method to two types of “eligible property”: Stock in trade or other property properly includible in the inventory of the taxpayer and non-inventory property held by a taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's trade or business. The preamble to the temporary regulations indicates that this limitation was prescribed because the simplified production method is not appropriate to account for the casual or occasional production of property ( i.e. , property that is not mass-produced on a repetitive and routine basis and that does not have a high “turnover” rate.) Similarly, the simplified service cost method is not appropriate to account for the casual or occasional production of property.

On August 22, 1988, the IRS published Notice 88-86 (1988-2 C.B. 401). Notice 88-86 states that forthcoming regulations will expand the categories of property eligible for the simplified production method and simplified service cost method to other types of property that share characteristics that are appropriate for application of the methods. In particular, the notice indicates that the regulations will provide that the simplified production method and the simplified service cost method are available to (1) self-constructed assets substantially identical in nature to, and produced in the same manner as, inventory property or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's trade or business, and (2) self-constructed assets produced by the taxpayer on a routine and repetitive basis in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's production activities.

On August 9, 1993, final regulations under section 263A were published in the Federal Register (TD 8482, 1993-2 C.B. 77, [58 FR 42198]). The final regulations follow Notice 88-86 and expand the categories of eligible property for the simplified production method and the simplified service cost method.

Notice 2003-36 (2003-1 C.B. 992), as modified by Notice 2003-59 (2003-59 C.B. 429), indicates that the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that uncertainty exists as to what types of property constitute “eligible property” under §§ 1.263A-1(h)(2)(i)(D) and 1.263A-2(b)(2)(i)(D) for purposes of the simplified service cost method and the simplified production method. These sections provide that self-constructed assets produced by a taxpayer on a routine and repetitive basis in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's trade or business are “eligible property.”

To provide guidance as to what types of property constitute “eligible property” under the final regulations, Rev. Rul. 2005-53, 2005-35 I.R.B. __ (dated August 29, 2005), holds that a taxpayer's production of property will be considered “routine and repetitive” for purposes of §§ 1.263A-1(h)(2)(i)(D) and 1.263A-2(b)(2)(i)(D) only if the property is mass-produced ( i.e. , numerous identical goods are manufactured using standardized designs and assembly line techniques) or the produced property has a high degree of turnover ( i.e. , the costs of production are recovered over a relatively short amount of time).

Upon further consideration of the simplified service cost method and the simplified production method under §§ 1.263A-1(h)(2)(i)(D) and 1.263A-2(b)(2)(i)(D), the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that, to minimize the distortion of income that may arise from the use of those methods, a taxpayer's production of property is considered “routine and repetitive” for purposes of those sections only if the property is mass-produced and has a high degree of turnover. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that self-constructed property is considered produced on a routine and repetitive basis for purposes of the simplified service cost method and the simplified production method only if numerous substantially identical units of tangible personal property are produced within a taxable year using standardized designs and assembly line techniques and the applicable recovery period of the assets under § 168(c) is not longer than 3 years.

A change in a taxpayer's treatment of mixed service costs or additional section 263A costs to comply with these temporary regulations is a change in method of accounting to which the provisions of sections 446 and 481 and the regulations thereunder apply. For the taxpayer's first taxable year ending on or after August 2, 2005, the taxpayer is granted the consent of the Commissioner to change its method of accounting to comply with these temporary regulations, provided the taxpayer follows the applicable administrative procedures for obtaining the Commissioner's automatic consent to a change in accounting method (for further guidance, for example, see Rev. Proc. 2002-9 (2002-1 C.B. 327), as modified and clarified by Announcement 2002-17 (2002-1 C.B. 561), modified and amplified by Rev. Proc. 2002-19 (2002-1 C.B. 696), and amplified, clarified, and modified by Rev. Proc. 2002-54 (2002-2 C.B. 432)). For purposes of Form 3115, “Application for Change in Accounting Method”, the designated number for the automatic accounting method change authorized by this regulation is “95.” If Form 3115 is revised or renumbered, any reference in this section to that form is treated as a reference to the revised or renumbered form. For the taxpayer's second and subsequent taxable years ending on or after August 2, 2005, requests to secure the consent of the Commissioner must be made under the administrative procedures for obtaining the Commissioner's advance consent to a change in accounting method (for further guidance, for example, see Rev. Proc. 97-27 (1997-1 C.B. 680), as modified and amplified by Rev. Proc. 2002-19 (2002-1 C.B. 696), as amplified and clarified by Rev. Proc. 2002-54 (2002-2 C.B. 432)). However, notwithstanding section 5.04(1) of Rev. Proc. 2002-9 and section 5.02(3)(a) of Rev. Proc. 97-27, the section 481(a) adjustment period is two taxable years for a net positive adjustment for an accounting method change that is made to conform to these temporary regulations.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Please refer to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Scott Rabinowitz of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

On July 2, 2001, the Coast Guard published a final rule (66 FR 34822) modifying the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1301, for the safe execution of the Seattle Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane races on the waters of Lake Washington. On June 24, 2004, the Coast Guard published a final rule (69 FR 35250) in 33 CFR 165.1319, to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seattle Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance.

The Special Local Regulation (33 CFR 100.1301) provides for a regulated area to protect spectators while providing unobstructed vessel traffic lanes to ensure timely arrival of emergency response craft. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area described unless otherwise regulated by the COTP or his designee. The COTP may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this SLR.

The safety zone regulation (33 CFR 165.1319) establishes requirements for all vessels to obtain permission of the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone when it is enforced. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless otherwise exempted or excluded under 33 CFR 165.1319 or unless authorized by the COTP or his designee. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound will begin enforcing the Seattle Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane Race Special Local Regulation (SLR) as per 33 CFR 100.1301, and the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance Safety Zone as per 33 CFR 165.1319, on Thursday, August 4, 2005 at 8 a.m. Pacific daylight time. These regulations will be enforced until Sunday, August 7, 2005 at 8 p.m. Pacific daylight time. All persons and vessels are authorized to enter, move within, and exit the regulated area or safety zone on or after Sunday, August 7, 2005 at 8 p.m. Pacific daylight time unless a new notice of enforcement is issued before then.

On April 30, 2004, EPA took final action on key elements of the program to implement the 8-hour ozone (NAAQS or standard) (Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1) (69 FR 23951) (Phase 1 Rule). In the Phase 1 Rule, EPA established regulatory provisions governing when the 1-hour NAAQS would no longer apply to areas ( i.e. , would be revoked) (40 CFR 50.9(b)) and promulgated “anti-backsliding” provisions that provided which 1-hour ozone control obligations would continue to apply in areas that were designated nonattainment or attainment subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard as of the effective date of the area's 8-hour ozone designation (40 CFR 51.905). The Phase 1 Rule provided that the 1-hour control obligations that continue to apply be the control obligations required as of the date of signature on the Phase 1 Rule ( i.e. , April 15, 2004). In response to a Petition for Reconsideration (May 26, 2005, 70 FR 30592), EPA reconsidered this issue and changed that date to the effective date of an area's 8-hour ozone designation ( i.e. , for most areas, June 15, 2004).

On April 30, 2004, EPA also published air quality designations and classifications for every area in the United States, including Indian country, for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred Effective Dates) (69 FR 23858). For most areas of the country, the 8-hour ozone NAAQS designations and classifications became effective on June 15, 2004. For areas participating in the early action compact (EAC) process, EPA deferred the effective date of the designations and classifications until September 30, 2005. 1 In addition, on June 15, 2004, we deferred the effective date of the 8-hour designation for Clark County, Nevada in order to consider additional information submitted by the State (69 FR 34076). We took final action designating and classifying that area on September 10, 2004, with an effective date of September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55956).

The purpose of this rule is to revise the 1-hour ozone NAAQS tables in 40 CFR part 81 to reflect the application of our revocation rule at 40 CFR 50.9(b). We are revising the tables to indicate for which areas the 1-hour standard has been revoked, but we are retaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS designation and classification status as of the time of the effective date of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS for purposes of our anti-backsliding regulations at 40 CFR 51.905, which apply after revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, EPA is making two technical corrections to the last sentence in 40 CFR 51.905(c)(1). That sentence currently provides that “40 CFR Part 81, Subpart E identifies the boundaries of areas and the area designations and classifications for the 1-hour NAAQS at the time the 1-hour NAAQS no longer applied to each area.” First, EPA is changing the reference to subpart E of part 81 to instead reference subpart C of part 81. The EPA initially planned to move the 1-hour NAAQS tables to subpart E upon revocation of the 1-hour standard for an area, but has now concluded that it makes more sense to leave the tables in subpart C and to modify the existing tables to identify the areas for which the 1-hour standard has been revoked. Second, we are correcting an error in the last clause of that sentence. That sentence indicates that the tables will reflect an area's 1-hour designation and classification “at the time the 1-hour NAAQS no longer applied” in the area. This language is a remnant from the proposed regulatory text which was released for public comment on August 2, 2003 (68 FR 46536). As explained in the preamble to the Phase 1 Rule, in that final rule, we instead adopted the approach set forth in the June 3, 2003 proposal, which was to retain certain 1-hour obligations that applied as of the date of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS. We made the appropriate changes to other aspects of the regulatory text ( see e.g., 51.905(a)(1) and (2)) and indicated in the preamble that this section would refer to the time of designation for the 8-hour standard (69 FR 23984, column 1). We erroneously neglected to change the regulatory text in this section. The purpose of the tables is to identify the areas subject to the anti-backsliding provisions. Since the anti-backsliding provisions apply based on an area's status as of the time of designation for the 8-hour standard, this regulatory provision should indicate that the modified tables in subpart C of part 81 will reflect each area's status as of that date.

Subpart C of part 81 is being amended to add footnotes to the existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS tables for every State in the country. The footnotes indicate whether, and if so when, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been revoked for areas within the State. We had previously reserved subpart E of part 81 for the purpose of reflecting where (and when) the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been revoked. However, we have concluded that it makes more sense to retain and modify the tables in subpart C to include the necessary information. Therefore, we are eliminating the reservation of subpart E in our regulatory text.

This action is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Today's action codifies regulatory changes that implement the Phase 1 Implementation Rule that was issued after notice-and-comment rulemaking. Notice and comment is unnecessary because the action codifying the areas where the 1-hour standard no longer applies is a straightforward application of the rule based on the regulatory status of areas for the 1-hour ozone standard as of June 15, 2004. Additionally, we are making two technical revisions to § 51.905(c)(1) of our regulations. The decision to retain the tables in subpart C, rather than to move them to subpart E has no practical effect on any party or area. This decision is for administrative ease of EPA and there are no regulatory implications for any other party. We are also revising the regulatory language to correct an oversight in our conversion of the draft regulatory text to the final regulation. It was clear from our preamble statements and from our definition of “applicable requirements” that this regulatory text should reflect the date an area was designated for the 8-hour standard rather than the date of revocation of the 1-hour standard. Thus, notice and comment is unnecessary for these revisions as well. Finally, we note that the regulatory implications of revocation of the 1-hour standard and of the anti-backsliding provisions were established in the Phase 1 Rule. The regulatory changes being made today are for the purpose of ensuring that other portions of the Code of Federal Regulations accurately reflect the status of areas as modified through the Phase 1 Rule. Thus, it is in the public interest to make this information available without a protracted notice-and-comment process.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(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 the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the above factors applies. As such, this final rule was not formally submitted to OMB for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final action to identify 1-hour ozone areas where the 1-hour standard is no longer applicable as of June 15, 2005 and the boundaries of the 1-hour ozone areas and their respective designations and classifications as of June 15, 2004 does not require the collection of any information.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers of EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Today's final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute.

Today's action codifies regulatory changes that implement the Phase 1 Implementation Rule that was issued after notice-and-comment rulemaking. Notice and comment is unnecessary because the action codifying the areas where the 1-hour standard no longer applies is a straightforward application of the rule based on the regulatory status of areas for the 1-hour ozone standard as of June 15, 2004.

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, EPA generally must 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, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's final action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not create new requirements. The EPA's Phase 1 Ozone Implementation Rule established “anti-backsliding” requirements that apply based on the area's 1-hour ozone designation and classification as of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS and provided for revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS 1 year after an area's 8-hour designation. This rule modifies the tables in part 81 to reflect in which areas the 1-hour standard has been revoked and to ensure the tables reflect the area's 1-hour designation and classification status as of the effective date of the area's 8-hour designation.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the scheme whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “Tribal implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule identifies those areas of the country where the 1-hour ozone standard is no longer applicable as of June 15, 2005, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.9(b) and ensures the tables in part 81 reflect the 1-hour ozone designation and classification status of areas as of the effective date of each area's 8-hour designation. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) give Tribes the opportunity to develop and implement CAA programs such as programs to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but leave to the discretion of the Tribe whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, they will adopt. This rule does not affect those provisions of the CAA or the TAR.

This final rule does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. This rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA did communicate to Tribal representatives regarding today's action.

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effects on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule does not alter any applicable requirements; it merely ensures that the tables in 40 CFR part 81 reflect for which areas the 1-hour standard has been revoked and for these areas the 1-hour designation and classification status of the area as of the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS. We evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children. The results of this risk assessment are contained in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38855-38896; specifically, 62 FR 38854, 62 FR 38860 and 62 FR 38865).

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying, and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations.

This rule does not raise any environmental justice issues. This rule does not alter any applicable requirements; it merely ensures that the tables in 40 CFR part 81 reflect the status of areas pursuant to EPA's Phase 1 Rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The health and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the establishment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The level is designed to be protective with an adequate margin of safety.

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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

The actions taken in this rule are “nationally applicable” and of “nationwide scope and effect” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). This rule modifies the tables in subpart C for each State, as defined in section 301(d) of the CAA. These modifications are being made consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(c), a regulation that applies in the same manner to all areas across the United States. Additionally, EPA is making a technical correction to the last sentence of section 51.905(c) of EPA's Phase 1 Rule.

In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has “scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this rulemaking extend to numerous judicial circuits since the revisions to part C apply to all areas of the country. In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the rule to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit.

Thus, any petitions for review of this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register .

Each State is required to have a SIP that contains the control measures and strategies that will be used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The control measures and strategies must be formally adopted by each State after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to EPA as SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.

Once these control measures are approved by EPA after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the SIP and are identified in part 52, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The actual State regulations that are approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that the citation of a given State regulation with a specific effective date has been approved by EPA. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and insures that the State is enforcing the regulations. It also allows EPA and the public to take enforcement action should a State not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.

The SIP is a living document that the State can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. From time to time, therefore, EPA must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), as a result of consultations between EPA and OFR, EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs. EPA began the process of developing (1) a revised SIP document for each State that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR, and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document.

The new SIP compilations contain the Federally-approved portion of regulations submitted by each State agency. These regulations have all been approved by EPA through previous rule making actions in the Federal Register . The compilations are stored in hard covered folders and will be updated, usually on an annual basis.

Each compilation contains two parts. Part 1 contains the regulations and Part 2 contains nonregulatory provisions that have been EPA-approved. Each part consists of a table of identifying information for each regulation and each nonregulatory provision. The table of identifying information corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for each State and Territory. The Regional EPA Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations. The Region IX EPA Office developed and will maintain the compilation for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. A copy of the full text of each State's current compilation will also be maintained at the Office of the Federal Register and EPA's Air Docket and Information Center.

In order to better serve the public, EPA is revising the organization of the “Identification of plan” section to include additional information that will make it clearer as to what provisions constitute the enforceable elements of the SIP.

The revised “Identification of plan” section will contain five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA approved regulations, (d) EPA approved source specific permits, and (e) EPA approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc.

All revisions to the applicable SIP become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable “Identification of plan” found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52. To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, EPA is retaining the original “Identification of plan” section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first section of part 52 for subpart FFF, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Today's rule constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all revisions to State programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish the proposed revision in the Federal Register and provide for public comment before approval.

EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation; and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in previous actions taken on the State's rules.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Today's action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective August 3, 2005. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . These corrections to the “Identification of plan” for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “Identification of plan” reorganization actions for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

On December 1, 2004 (69 FR 69823), EPA approved a revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) removing control technology guidelines for perc dry cleaning systems and related definitions and provisions contained in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) chapter 340, Division 232. On February 7, 1996, (61 FR 4588) EPA had excluded perc from the Federal definition of volatile organic compounds for purposes of preparing SIPs for attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. Therefore, States were no longer required to have rules based on EPA's perc dry cleaning control technology guidelines included in their SIPs. Because of this, the State of Oregon, Division of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) repealed its control technology guidelines for perc dry cleaning systems and the related definitions and provisions on December 7, 2001, and submitted the repeal as a formal SIP revision. The State requested approval of the removal of the perc rules because maintaining the SIP rules for perc was no longer required for ozone control and would have been largely duplicative of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under which emissions from perc dry cleaning systems are still regulated.

In approving the revision, EPA inadvertently listed the State effective date as October 14, 1999, rather than the correct State effective date of the repeal of the perc rules which was December 26, 2001. The error was made in the incorporation by reference section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) amendatory instructions at the end of the notice. EPA's intention was to approve and incorporate by reference the more recent version of OAR 340-232-010 and -030, which was effective December 26, 2001. This document corrects the erroneous amendatory language.

EPA is publishing this action without a prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, however, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This direct final rule is effective on October 3, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 2, 2005. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule did not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 6, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 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))

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/) , you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/ . To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.

In the Federal Register of June 11, 2003 (68 FR 34955) (FRL-7308-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 3F6516) by Eastman Chemical Company, P.O. Box 511, Kingsport, TN 37662. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Eastman Chemical Company. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Acetic acid was previously registered by EPA and was exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a hay and grain preservative under 40 CFR 180.1029. However, the registration was canceled and the tolerance was revoked due to failure by the registrant to respond to a January 1987 generic Data Call-In, and also for failure to submit the required annual pesticide registration maintenance fees (58 FR 47214, September 8, 1993).

The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid when used as a preservative for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal feed.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Acetic acid is a naturally occurring substance found in all plants, animals, and humans. An intermediate produced in aerobic metabolism of foods during digestion (FDA, 1977), acetic acid has a long history of safe use as a food additive, and when diluted, is most commonly used and referred to as vinegar. It is a natural component of apple cider vinegar and other fruit and distilled vinegars, at a concentration ranging from 4-8%. This rule supports the use of acetic acid as the active ingredient in pesticide products that will be used as a preservative for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal feed. The application rate will be based on the moisture content of the commodity, but concentrations of acetic acid as applied will be between 1% on hay and about 1.5% on grain. Any resulting residues of acetic acid will be less than those that result from the use of vinegar in or on foods.

In support of this tolerance exemption, data waivers were requested for the required mammalian toxicity studies, including acute toxicity and other toxicological studies used to determine risk to human health, based on the lack of toxicity associated with acetic acid in commonly consumed food and information available from the public literature. Additionally, acetic acid is considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the Food and Drug Administration when applied directly to foods (21 CFR 184.1005).

Data waivers were sought and granted for the following toxicity studies based on information from the open scientific literature:

• Acute Oral Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1100)

• Acute Dermal Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1200)

• Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1300)

• Primary Eye Irritation (OPPTS 870.2400)

• Primary Dermal Irritation (OPPTS 870.2500)

Acetic acid is a commonly known food material that has been tested and written about for years. As a result, a lot of toxicity studies about aa are found in the public literature. As demonstrated in the public literature supplied by the applicant, acetic acid has a low pH (pH 2.4) and low corrosivity. Indeed, the effects on targeted microbial pest species are due to the low pH. Similarly, primary eye irritation and primary dermal irritation testing was not deemed necessary due to the low pH and low corrosivity of the active ingredient. As a result, the Agency concluded that additional acute oral, acute dermal, and acute inhalation toxicity testings are not necessary.

1. Hypersensitivity (OPPTS 870.2600). The potential for repeated contact of the product with human skin is a concern only to applicators of the end-use products. However, the risk to applicators from exposure is mitigated as they are required to wear protective chemical-resistant gloves, aprons, and footwear. There are no reports of dermal sensitization to low concentrations of acetic acid at concentrations such as those found in vinegars. Accordingly, a hypersensitivity study is not required for registration of this product (per 40 CFR 158.690(c)(2)(iii)).

The registrant has reported no hypersensitivity incidents to date (OPPTS Guideline 885.3400). Nonetheless, pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(2), the registrant is required to report to the Agency any future incidents of hypersensitivity associated with acetic acid.

2. Genotoxicity (OPPTS 870.5100 and 870.5375). In lieu of guideline studies, the registrant submitted a waiver request with supporting studies/data/information from the open technical literature (Master Record Identification Number (MRID) 457691-06)). Two non-guideline gene mutation studies in bacteria (Ames test) were conducted as part of a larger screening study of large numbers of chemicals. Reviews of these studies showed that this compound is not anticipated to induce mutagenic responses. Moreover, acetic acid is not structurally related to any known mutagens. As a result, the agency approved the waiver request for genotoxicity studies.

3. Immune response (OPPTS 870.7800). The registrant requested a waiver for this study, and submitted supporting studies/data/information from the open technical literature. EPA's review concluded that acetic acid is a common component of the diet in humans and is a naturally-occurring metabolite found in all plants and animals (including humans). Acetic acid is non-toxic at levels (4%-8%) consumed by humans in or on foods. With no known incidences of allergic responses to acetic acid, there is reasonable evidence that acetic acid would not induce adverse immune responses in humans, particularly at the very low levels anticipated from the proposed pesticidal uses. As a result, the agency approved the waiver request for the Immune Response study.

4. 90-Day feeding (OPPTS 870.3100). Data waivers were sought and granted for this study. The conditions of potential exposure requiring this study are not triggered. Acetic acid is a food acid and is naturally occurring. Acetic acid is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and through the lungs and is readily, although not completely, oxidized in the organism. Acetic acid is proposed to be used as a hay and grain preservative at low concentrations and for animal food only. When the product is applied according to label directions, the treated hay and grains will contain less than 2% of acetic acid. After consumption by the animal, AA will then be rapidly metabolized. Moreover, acetic acid is consumed (by humans) at higher concentrations found in commercially available vinegar (4%-8%), without any reported negative effects. Therefore, there would be no expected subchronic effects from the use of acetic acid in products intended for hay and grain treatment.

5. 90-Day dermal (OPPTS 870.3250). A data waiver was sought and granted for this study. The active ingredient acetic acid is intended for use as a preservative on stored grain and hay used as animal feed. There will be no intentional application to human skin and there will be no prolonged human dermal exposure. Acetic acid is not expected to be metabolized differently by the dermal route of exposure.

6. 90-Day inhalation (OPPTS 870.3465). A data waiver was sought and granted for this study. Repeated inhalation exposure to acetic acid is not expected because application will occur seasonally and the product is rapidly diluted in the air. Furthermore, the applicator/operator is separated from the point of application by 15-20 feet and is typically, but not always, within an enclosed tractor cab.

7. Developmental toxicity (OPPTS 870.3550). In three developmental toxicity studies (MRID 457691-07), acetic acid was administered to presumed pregnant rats, mice, and rabbits by gavage at 0, 16, 74.3, 345, or 1,600 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). Rats, mice, and rabbits were sacrificed for examination on days 17, 20, and 29, respectively. No treatment-related maternal deaths occurred in any species. Maternal body weights for rats and rabbits were not affected by treatment. For high-dose mice, body weights were 90% of the control level on day 11 and 88% of the controls on days 15 and 17. Therefore, the maternal toxicity lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for acetic acid is 1,600 mg/kg/day for mice based on reduced body weight; the LOAEL was not identified for rats and rabbits. The maternal toxicity no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 345 mg/kg/day for mice and was ≥1,600 mg/kg/day for rats and rabbits. For all three species, the numbers of implantations, resorptions, and live fetuses per litter were similar between the treated and control groups. No effects on numbers of dead fetuses or fetal body weights were observed in rats or rabbits. In mice, a greater number of litters in the high-dose group contained dead fetuses compared with the controls (7/21 vs. 2/22 respectively). Mean fetal body weight from high-dose mice was 0.84 gram (g) compared with 0.92 g for the controls. No treatment-related external, visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations were observed in fetuses from rats, mice, or rabbits. Therefore, the developmental toxicity LOAEL for acetic acid is 1,600 mg/kg/day for mice based on an increased number of dead fetuses/litter and decreased fetal body weight; the LOAEL for rats and rabbits was not identified. The developmental toxicity NOAEL for acetic acid is 345 mg/kg/day for mice and ≥1,600 mg/kg/day for rats and rabbits. It should be noted that the highest dose tested in all three species, 1,600 mg/kg/day, is greater than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. As a result, developmental toxicity is not expected from the use sought for acetic acid as a post-harvest grain and hay preservative.

Based on the data or data waivers submitted in accordance with the Tier I toxicology data requirements set forth in 40 CFR 158.690(c), the Tier II and Tier III toxicology data requirements also set forth therein were not triggered and, therefore, not required in connection with this action.

In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

Acetic acid is a common metabolite in plants and animals. It is normally produced in relatively large amounts during the digestion and metabolism of foods (FDA, 1977). It is not a known mutagen, teratogen, nor oncogen; neither is it chemically related to any known class of mutagens, teratogens, or oncogens. Moreover, the acetic acid contained in this product is intended solely for use as a post-harvest preservative on hay and grain. After the treated feed is ingested by animals, acetic acid is readily metabolized into a source of energy for the animal. As a result, the possibility of human exposure through consumption of meat or milk from these animals, is not expected.

1. Food . When end-use products containing the active ingredient acetic acid are used in the manner intended for stored hay and grains, residues of acetic acid will not be present on the feed commodities at levels greater than 2%. While human dietary exposure from the use of this product is not expected in connection with the proposed uses, even if humans were to consume acetic acid at these levels, the dietary intake would be 2 to 3 times less than when consuming vinegar in vegetable salads and other commonly consumed foods. Moreover, human dietary exposure is also not anticipated from the consumption of meat and milk of animals that were fed treated grains and hay (see Unit IV. above).

2. Drinking water exposure . When used according to label directions, no dietary exposure through drinking water is expected from the use of acetic acid to treat stored hay and grains. The product is not intended for use in drinking water, nor are the approved uses likely to result in acetic acid reaching surface or ground water that might be used as drinking water. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the use of acetic acid to treat stored hay and grains does result in acetic acid reaching water that ultimately is consumed, it would not pose any health risk due to its inherent low toxicity and ability to be metabolized just like vinegar.

Based on the proposed post-harvest use on stored hay and grains that will be used as feed only, the potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to acetic acid residues by the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely. Moreover, in the unlikely event of non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to acetic acid residues as a result of the proposed post-harvest uses, no harm is expected because of acetic acid's low toxicity. Based on available data, therefore, it is highly unlikely that any adverse effects will occur to humans via use of acetic acid as a post-harvest preservative for stored hay and grains.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” These considerations include the possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children. Acetic acid is used in a manner similar to propionic acid as a preservative of post-harvest hay and grain. Under aerobic conditions, propionic acid acts as a carbon source for various microbes and is metabolized to acetic acid. Propionic acid is also used on other food commodities. Certain uses of propionic acid are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1023. Since there will be no dietary or non-dietary, non-occupational exposure to acetic acid when the end-use product is used according to label directions, no cumulative or incremental effects to humans are anticipated.

1. U.S. population . There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of acetic acid due to its use as a preservative for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal feed. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the function of acetic acid as a natural component of metabolism in the human body, the anticipated low acute exposure estimates from its pesticidal use, the common use of acetic acid in the human diet and its classification by the FDA as GRAS as a direct food additive.

2. Infants and children . FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (MOE) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure, which are often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE analysis or by using uncertainty factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk. In this instance, based on all available information, the Agency concludes that acetic acid is non-toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children and adults when acetic acid is used as labeled, the Agency concludes that the additional MOE is not necessary to protect infants and children and that not adding any additional MOE will be safe for infants and children.

EPA is required under section 408(p) of the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Acetic acid is not a known endocrine disruptor nor is it related to any class of known endocrine disruptors. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on this Agency's safety finding set forth in this final rule for acetic acid.

Through this action, the Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for acetic acid when used as a preservative on post-harvest hay and grain intended for use as animal feed. For the very same reasons that support the granting of this tolerance exemption, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for these proposed uses of acetic acid.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.

• Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111)

• Animal production (NAICS code 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In addition to using EDOCKET ( http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ ), you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/ .

In the Federal Register of April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21713) (FRL-7709-1), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke five tolerance exemptions for residues of dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorotetrafluoroethane, and trichlorofluoromethane because those substances are either no longer contained in pesticide products and/or because their use in pesticide products sold in the U.S. has been prohibited for over a decade due to EPA's ban on the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution in interstate commerce of certain nonessential products that contain or are manufactured with ozone depleting compounds. EPA believes this rationale also extends to ingredients whose use in pesticide products is prohibited as a result of EPA's 1994 ban, under the CAA, on certain non-essential aerosol and pressurized products containing ozone depleting compounds (see 40 CFR part 82, subpart C). Also the proposal of April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21713) provided a 60-day comment period that invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance exemption retention under the FFDCA standards.

In this final rule, EPA is revoking five tolerance exemptions for residues of dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorotetrafluoroethane, and trichlorofluoromethane because these specific tolerance exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerance exemptions revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticide chemicals in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.

EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances and tolerance exemptions that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations or uses under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.

Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances and tolerance exemptions on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies:

1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking the tolerances or tolerance exemptions on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.

2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance or tolerance exemption is no longer needed.

3. The tolerance or tolerance exemption is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance or tolerance exemption meets the requirements under FQPA.

EPA received one comment on the proposal to revoke these tolerance exemptions, and the commenter supported this revocation action.

Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and in the proposed rule, EPA is revoking the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of dichlorodifluoromethane, dichlorotetrafluoroethane, and trichlorofluoromethane, and in 40 CFR 180.930 for residues of dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane.

The information in this section is organized as follows:

After evaluating Energy's petition and supplemental information provided by Energy, EPA proposed on July 15, 2004 (69 FR 42395), to exclude the petitioned mixed  1 wastes managed or generated by the 200 Area ETF on the Hanford Facility in Richland, Washington. The action relates to treated liquid effluents produced by the 200 Area ETF, which were first delisted in June 1995. See 60 FR 6054, February 1, 1995. EPA's final exclusion modifies this existing delisting by increasing the annual quantity of waste delisted to conform to the expected full treatment capacity of the 200 Area ETF and by expanding the list of hazardous waste numbers and F039 constituents for which 200 Area ETF treated effluent is delisted. Changes relating to waste numbers for which 200 Area ETF treated effluent is excluded include expanding the list of constituents associated with hazardous waste number F039 (multisource leachate), from the current F001 to F005 constituents to all constituents for which F039 waste is listed, 2 adding certain wastewater forms of U- and P-listed wastes, and certain additional F-listed waste numbers. These additional U-, P- and F-listed waste numbers are those whose chemical constituents are included in the list of hazardous constituents for which F039 was listed (see 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII). This latter addition is intended to accommodate possible management of U-, P- and F-listed wastewaters from spill cleanup or decontamination associated with management of these wastes at the Central Waste Complex (CWC) or other storage facilities. These spill cleanup wastes include exactly the same constituents that will eventually contribute to F039 when the source wastes are land disposed, so today's analysis of expanding the 200 Area ETF treated effluent to include F039 applies equally to the wastewater forms of the same chemical constituents in their U-, P- and F-listed waste forms.

The effect of these changes is to allow the 200 Area ETF to fulfill an expanded role in supporting Hanford Facility cleanup actions beyond those activities considered in the 1995 delisting rulemaking. In particular, these changes will allow the 200 Area ETF to treat mixed wastewaters from a number of additional sources beyond 242-A Evaporator process condensate (PC) upon which the original delisting was based.

We believe that the petitioned waste should be conditionally delisted because the waste, when managed in accordance with today's final conditions, do not meet the criteria for which the wastes originally were listed and the waste do not contain other constituents or factors that could cause the waste stream to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. Our final decision to delist the petitioned waste is based on information submitted by Energy, including the description of the wastewaters managed by the ETF and their original generating sources, the ETF treatment processes, and the analytical data characterizing performance of the 200 Area ETF.

In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22. These factors include: (1) Whether the waste are considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to bio-accumulate; (5) persistence of the constituents in the environment once released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) variability of the waste. We also evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(1), (2) and (3) and factors required by 40 CFR 260.22(a)(2). EPA finds the petitioned wastes do not meet the listing criteria and determined that none of the factors listed above warrant retaining the petitioned wastes as hazardous.

This exclusion applies to certain 200 Area ETF treated effluents identified in today's final rule, provided the conditions contained herein are satisfied.

The effective date of today's action is September 2, 2005. RCRA Section 3010(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance with the new regulatory requirements. In the proposed rule preamble, EPA noted that the rule, if finalized, would reduce existing regulatory requirements, so that a six-month period was not necessary for Energy to come into compliance. EPA further noted that, if finalized, the proposal would be effective immediately upon final publication, and that a later date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on the petitioner.

After further reflection and consideration of Energy's comments, EPA continues to believe that a full six month period is not necessary to achieve full compliance with this rule. EPA recognizes, however, that the revised exclusion will contain somewhat different conditions than the original exclusion rule. Even though today's final rule provides relief from RCRA regulatory requirements for significantly more wastes than was previously the case, Energy must still demonstrate compliance with the new conditions of the new exclusion, even for wastes currently being processed in compliance with the existing exclusion. One example of such a condition is preparation of a waste processing strategy. To ensure Energy has adequate opportunity to update its internal procedures and produce documentation required by the new exclusion conditions, EPA is delaying the effective date of the final rule to 30 days after publication.

A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or another agency with jurisdiction to exclude, or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous waste, waste the generator believes should not be considered hazardous under RCRA.

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.

Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

This final rule is issued under the federal (RCRA) delisting authority found at 40 CFR 260.22. Some states are authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the federal program, i.e. , to make their own delisting decision. Therefore, this rule does not apply under RCRA in those authorized states. For states not authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the federal program (as is the case with the State of Washington as of the date of today's final rule), today's rule will become effective with respect to the federal (RCRA) program. Energy will, however, have to comply with any additional applicable state requirements.

States are allowed to impose regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in a state. Because a petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system, ( i.e. , both federal and state programs), petitioners are urged to contact state regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes under the state laws.

The original delisting action considered treatment of only one waste stream, process condensate from the 242-A Evaporator (242-A Evaporator PC). Since promulgation of the original delisting, the operating mission of the 200 Area ETF has expanded considerably. Currently, the operating capacity of the 200 Area ETF provides treatment of 242-A Evaporator PC, treatment of Hanford Site contaminated groundwater from various pump-and-treat systems, and a variety of other wastewaters generated from waste management and cleanup activities at Hanford.

As discussed in section 3.0 of Energy's November 2001 petition, the mission of the 200 Area ETF is to treat wastewater generated on the Hanford Facility from cleanup activities including multisource leachate from operation of hazardous/mixed waste landfills, and other hazardous wastewaters from a variety of sources including analytical laboratory operations, research and development studies, waste treatment processes, environmental restoration and deactivation projects, and other waste management activities. Based on this change in the 200 Area ETF mission, Energy petitioned EPA to modify the existing delisting applicable to treated liquid effluent from the 200 Area ETF by increasing the effluent volume limit to 210 million liters per year, and to conditionally exclude treated effluents from treatment by the 200 Area ETF of certain liquid Hanford wastes with hazardous waste numbers identified at 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 as F001-F005, F039, and all U- and P-listed substances and selected additional F-listed waste numbers whose associated compounds appear in the listing definition of F039. Under the current delisting, the liquid effluent volume is limited to approximately 86 million liters per year, and delisted only for F001-F005 waste numbers and F039 waste constituents from F001 through F005 waste numbers.

The November 2001 delisting petition explains that wastes bearing numbers P029, P030, P098, P106, P120, and U123, as well as other U- and P-listed numbers corresponding to F039 constituents, are currently managed, or may be managed in the future, as part of Hanford cleanup operations. Wastes bearing these waste numbers are intended for future disposal in the mixed waste landfill (Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLBG)). These wastes, therefore, eventually will contribute to generation of F039 multisource leachate from this unit, and are specifically considered in the analysis of F039 constituents in Energy's delisting petition (refer to Appendix B of the November 2001 delisting petition). Energy believes that wastewaters bearing these waste numbers could be generated from activities such as spill cleanup or equipment decontamination, and such wastewaters could be managed best at the 200 Area ETF. Energy's petition did not propose to manage the discarded commercial chemical products in the 200 Area ETF, but only wastewaters from spill cleanup or equipment decontamination.

To ensure that the commercial chemical compounds themselves are not inappropriately managed at the 200 Area ETF, EPA's proposal limited the wastes that could be managed by the 200 Area ETF to only those influent wastewaters bearing less than 1.0 weight percent of any hazardous constituent. These wastewaters would also bear the same U- and P-listed numbers by virtue of the 'derived from' rule discussed in Section I.A of the proposed rule. Because the hazardous constituents from these U- and P-listed wastes are already included in the analysis of 200 Area ETF performance for treatment of F039, EPA is not proposing any separate analysis specific to U- and P-listed numbers. EPA's proposal to include these U- and P-listed waste numbers is intended to include influent wastewaters that might be generated from management of wastes currently stored in CWC, as well as such wastewaters managed elsewhere at Hanford or which may be generated in the future.

As discussed below in section IV, comments from Energy clarified Energy's intent in the November 29, 2001 petition to include a number of other F-listed waste numbers among those considered in the requested exclusion.

EPA received comments on the proposed rule from the applicant and from an individual commenter. Individual comments and EPA's response may be found in the response to comments document, which has been included in the docket for this final rulemaking. A summary of key comments and changes, if any, to the proposed rule, appear below.

In addition to changes made in response to public comments, EPA is also making changes to the proposed rule necessary to conform to the Methods Innovation Rule, 70 FR 34538, June 14, 2005. Details of these changes and EPA's rationale for them can also be found in the response to comments document.

Comments from the Department of Energy focused on the proposed regulatory language and explanatory preamble text. One of Energy's comments questioned the addition of a number of conditions in the proposed exclusion which do not appear in the current exclusion, stating that EPA had not provided an explanation for the additional conditions. Energy presented as a basis for its comment statements in the proposed rule generally noting EPA's perspective that the 200 Area ETF is a robust, well-designed and well-operated wastewater treatment unit. While EPA affirms its statements regarding the robust nature of the facility, EPA fundamentally disagrees with Energy's comment. As noted in the proposal preamble and in EPA's response to comments, a key objective of the revised 200 Area ETF “upfront” delisting is to accommodate treatment of a wide range of waste streams not considered in the original exclusion, many of which have not yet been generated or characterized. Since Energy could not reasonably provide detailed characterization of wastes streams that have yet to be generated, EPA proposed a waste acceptance framework based on an engineering evaluation of waste streams. This model provides a degree of confidence that treatment in the 200 Area ETF will meet delisting exclusion limits to the same degree of confidence as if detailed waste stream characterization were available, while avoiding the need to frequently revise the delisting rule itself. As a result, EPA finds that the additional conditions noted in Energy's comments are not only fully justified, but absolutely essential to achieving the degree of flexibility requested by Energy in their delisting petition, given the lack of complete waste characterization information.

Another of Energy's comments provided clarification of Energy's intent to expand the suite of waste numbers covered by the proposed exclusion. Essentially, Energy provided a defensible argument that a number of additional F-listed waste numbers should be addressed by the exclusion. EPA agrees with this comment in part, but is limiting the additional F-listed waste numbers to those with a reasonable nexus to wastes expected to be managed by the 200 Area ETF. See the first paragraph of the regulatory exclusion language finalized today, appearing below in Table 2 in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 261.

Energy requested relief from the proposed exclusion condition relating to recording of treated effluent conductivity, contending that doing so would be without basis and a burden. EPA disagrees, since both measuring and recording of treated effluent provides important documentation confirming performance of the 200 Area ETF. This measurement also provides a basis, in part, for EPA's decision to relax the verification sampling frequency for treated effluent from every 10th verification tank, as in the original exclusion, to every 15th verification tank. Given the extended interval between full verification sampling, measuring and recording of treated effluent conductivity provide a simple but effective indicator or 200 Area ETF performance with regard to inorganic treatment efficiency. Therefore, EPA is retaining the recording condition as proposed.

Energy requested relief from the condition generally limiting disposal of treated effluent at the State Authorized Land Disposal Site, or SALDS. Energy's comment is based on jurisdictional grounds, and Energy's belief that treated effluent “is essentially demineralized water.” As described in Section III.C of the proposed rule preamble, the condition in question is established on the grounds that EPA evaluated the risk of treated effluent only with respect to a groundwater ingestion pathway, consistent with the approach taken by EPA in the original exclusion. The requirement to generally dispose of treated effluent at SALDS is intended to ensure exposure pathways other than groundwater do not occur without EPA analysis of potential risks from such pathways. EPA is retaining this condition as proposed, noting that the proposed and final rules do provide flexibility with respect to disposal practices through Condition 7 of the exclusion rule. Energy also requested deletion of Condition 7, on the basis that no non-radiological considerations warrant the condition, and that Energy is already engaged in various reuse activities using treated effluent. EPA is retaining Condition 7, since it relates directly to the scope of EPA's analysis of treated effluent risks, and since it provides flexibility for exactly the reuse practices noted in the comment.

Energy raised issues concerning reporting of environmental data, including groundwater data, to EPA in Condition (4)(a) of the proposed rule. Energy requested deletion of this condition on the grounds of being vague, and if retained, reconsideration of the requirement to report certain data within a ten-day period. EPA does not agree that the proposed condition is vague—in fact, EPA specifically crafted the condition to be specific in its scope. Although EPA did not propose explicit environmental or groundwater monitoring requirements as a condition of the proposed exclusion, EPA continues to believe that information that may otherwise become available to Energy relating to performance deficiencies of the 200 Area ETF (or any treatment facility subject to a delisting exclusion, for that matter) should be timely made available to EPA for consideration. EPA needs to ensure its ability to timely obtain and consider data that may indicate adverse environmental impacts of activities subject to the exclusion. Therefore, EPA is retaining the environmental data submission condition as defensible and implementable.

Finally, Energy requested modification to condition 4(b) relating to notification to EPA of changes to the 200 Area ETF. EPA accepted this comment in part, and has added clarifying language to more clearly define facility changes subject to this reporting requirement. See condition (4)(b).

Energy also provided a number of comments on preamble language in the proposed rule. In general, EPA notes these comments, and where appropriate, provides a clarifying analysis in the response to comments document to assist in implementing the regulatory exclusion conditions themselves. EPA has also provided an expanded discussion in the response to comments document of the relationship between exclusion conditions and Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards to assist Energy and the public in understanding this nexus, noting that the delisting exclusion rule does not impose nor demonstrate compliance with LDR treatment standards.

One individual provided a number of detailed comments. A number of these comments applied to Energy's November 29, 2001 petition document, rather than EPA's proposed rule. EPA has noted these comments, but finds that they were appropriately addressed in the proposal itself. One comment, however raised a valid point about a technical issue relating to how inorganic treatment/removal efficiencies were presented in Energy's petition. Energy's petition presented historical data in terms of maximum removal efficiencies. In some cases, data exists for some waste streams indicating removal efficiencies less than the maximum. While EPA does not believe that these differences would require significant change in the exclusion from what EPA proposed, EPA is never the less updating exclusion conditions to better relate removal efficiencies referenced by Condition (1)(a)(i) for purposes of establishing waste treatment strategies to actual or measured performance of the 200 Area ETF. More specifically, EPA is requiring Energy to adopt a more conservative approach to use of existing removal efficiency data that are applied to influent waste streams other than from which they were generated. In addition, EPA is defining more explicit methodology for Energy to update these removal efficiency data as it gains additional processing experience with new influent waste streams. See exclusion conditions 1(a)(ii) and 1(b). EPA expects that this change will not alter actual operations of the 200 Area ETF, but it will provide a more defensible basis for the engineering demonstrations that Energy must make under terms of the final exclusion.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant”, and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (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 the Executive Order. It has been determined that today's final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866, since its effect is to reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This reduction is achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. Therefore, EPA has determined that this final rule is not subject to OMB review.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. , is intended to minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or more non-Federal respondents be approved by OMB. Although this final rule establishes information and record-keeping requirements for Energy, it does not impose those requirements on any other facility or respondents, and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Administration Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The final exclusion will only have the effect of impacting the waste management of waste proposed for conditional delisting at the Hanford facility in the State of Washington. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (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, EPA generally must 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 and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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 various levels of government.”

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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 various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule addresses the conditional delisting of waste at the federal Hanford Facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although Section 6 of the Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with representatives of State and local governments in developing this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final rule conditionally delists certain wastes at the federal Hanford Facility and does not establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action present a disproportionate risk to children. The final rule concerns the proposed conditional delisting of certain wastes at the Hanford facility.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decides to use “government-unique” standards in lieu of available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rule involves environmental monitoring and measurement, but is not establishing new technical standards for verifying compliance with concentration limits, data quality or test methodology. EPA is not requiring the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. Therefore, EPA did not explicitly consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. Rather, the Agency has specifically accommodated use of an alternative method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. Examples of performance criteria are discussed in “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication-846, Third Edition, as amended by updates I, II, IIA, IIB and III.

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. Because this final rule addresses the conditional delisting of certain waste streams at the Hanford Facility, with no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

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

The Department is adding a new part 39 to 43 CFR to implement administrative wage garnishment provisions under section 31001(o) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1966 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358 (April 25, 1996), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3720D. Under this statute, the Department is adopting the administrative wage garnishment regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury at 31 CFR 285.11. Under the DCIA, a Federal agency that is collecting delinquent non-tax debt may administratively garnish the debtor's wages using a hearing process under the agency's own regulations or in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, if the agency adopts those regulations by reference. The DCIA allows a Federal agency collecting delinquent non-tax debt from a non-Federal employee to issue a wage garnishment order without first obtaining a court order. Should a debtor submit a written request for a hearing concerning the existence or amount of a debt, the administrative wage garnishment hearing procedures established in Treasury's regulations will be utilized by the Department to provide the debtor an opportunity to contest the garnishment. The Office of Hearings and Appeals will conduct the necessary hearings.

The Department's debt collection program does not require procedures different from those established by the Department of the Treasury, and therefore the Department hereby adopts the Treasury regulation without modifications, except to designate the Offices of Hearing and Appeals to conduct the hearings.

The Department has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply because of the exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), which allows the agency to suspend the notice and public procedure when the agency finds for good cause that those requirements are impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Because this rule commits the Department to follow without change an existing regulation of the Department of the Treasury, which has already been the subject of a proposed rule and public comment when promulgated by Treasury, we have determined that publication of a proposed rule and solicitation of comments is not necessary. While we are not required to solicit comments under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Department is soliciting comments to allow further public input regarding these procedures and will consider revising this rule if comments warrant.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, as amended by Pub. L. 104-121), the Department has reviewed this regulation, and by approving it, certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department's debt collection activities do not affect a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, as found by the Department of the Treasury, wage garnishment requirements do not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Employers of delinquent debtors must certify certain information about the debtor, such as the debtor's employment status and earnings. This information is contained in the employer's payroll records. Therefore, it will not take a significant amount of time or result in a significant cost for an employer to complete the certification form. Even if an employer is served withholding orders on several employees over the course of a year, the cost imposed on the employer to complete the certification would not have a significant economic impact on that entity. Employers are not required to vary their normal pay cycles in order to comply with a withholding order issued under this rule. For these reasons, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulation contains no information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-289, adopted July 21, 2005, and released July 22, 2005. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 301-816-2820, facsimile 301-816-0169, or via-e-mail joshir@erols.com .

This document does not contain [new or modified] information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order etc. in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 05-128, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 05-107, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in this proceeding in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-135, adopted July 13, 2005 and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No, 01-199, MB Docket Nos. 02-171, 02-174; 02-288; and 04-170, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

The Audio Division, at the request of Sierra Grande Broadcasting, allots Channel 265C2 at Gunnison, Colorado, as the community's four local FM transmission service. See 67 FR 47502, July 19, 2002. Channel 265C2 can be allotted to Gunnison in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 11.2 kilometers (7 miles) northwest to avoid a short-spacing to the license of Station KMOZ-FM, Channel 264C1, Grand Junction, Colorado. The coordinates for Channel 265C2 at Gunnison are 38-37-00 North Latitude and 107-01-00 West Longitude.

The Audio Division, at the request of Maurice Salsa, allots Channel 227A at Red Oak, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 67 FR 47502, July 19, 2002. Channel 227AA can be allotted to Red Oak in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of. The coordinates for Channel 227A at Red Oak are 34-50-34 North Latitude and 95-07-42 West Longitude.

The Audio Division, at the request of Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting, Co., LLC, allots Channel 244A at Tignall, Georgia, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 67 FR 63874, October 16, 2002. Channel 244A can be allotted to Tignall in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 9.8 kilometers (6.1 miles) northwest to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station WAKB(FM), Channel 245C3, Wrens, Georgia. The coordinates for Channel 244A at Tignall are 33-55-40 North Latitude and 82-48-58 West Longitude.

The Audio Division, at the request of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, allots Channel 257C at Rosebud, South Dakota, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 69 FR 29253, May 21, 2004. Channel 257C can be allotted to Rosebud in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles) east of the community. The coordinates for Channel 257C at Rosebud are 43-13-01 North Latitude and 100-47-33 West Longitude.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket Nos. 04-403, 04-349, 04-351, 04-342, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

The Audio Division, at the request of Linda A. Davidson, allots Channel 231C3 at Lockney, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. The reference coordinates for Channel 231C3 at Fernley are 39-37-00 North Latitude and 119-08-51 West Longitude. The allotment requires a site restriction of 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) east to avoid a short-spacing to the license site of FM Station KHXR, Channel 233C2, Sun Valley, Nevada.

The Audio Division, at the request of Charles Crawford, allots Channel 232A at Pittsburg, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. The reference coordinates for Channel 232A at Pittsburg are 34-41-15 North Latitude and 95-42-19 West Longitude. This allotment requires a site restriction of 13.5 kilometers (8.4 miles) east to avoid short-spacing to the license site of FM Station KTSO, Channel 231C1, Glenpool, Oklahoma. To accommodate the Pittsburg allotment, we are also relocating the reference coordinates for vacant Channel 232A at Cove, Arkansas. The reference coordinates are 34-21-00 North Latitude and 94-30-00 West Longitude. This new site is 12.5 kilometers (7.8 miles) southwest of Cove.

The Audio Division, at the request of Charles Crawford, allots Channel 234C3 at Paducah, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. The reference coordinates for Channel 234C3 at Paducah are 34-00-48 North Latitude and 100-18-24 West Longitude. This allotment requires no site restriction because the location is at city reference coordinates.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 04-252, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No.05-66, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order , adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for 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 also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will not send a copy of the Report & Order in this proceeding 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 synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 04-328, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202 863-2893. facsimile 202 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Channel 259A is listed at 47 CFR 202(b), FM Table of Allotments under Palacios, Texas.

We have no record that Channel 259A is currently licensed or allotted to Palacios.

Accordingly, the Report and Order deletes Channel 259A from 47 CFR 73.202(b) under Palacios.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 05-88, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order , MB Docket No. 05-129, adopted July 13, 2005, and released July 15, 2005.

The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com . The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

On June 24, 2003, the agency published a final rule making a number of revisions to FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) (68 FR 37620). The revisions incorporated four elements into the standard: (a) An updated bench seat used to dynamically test add-on child restraint systems; (b) a sled pulse that provides a wider test corridor; (c) expanded applicability to child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing up to 65 pounds; and (d) improved child test dummies. The newly incorporated test dummies included the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, conforming to 49 CFR part 572 subpart N. Under the June 2003 final rule, use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213 is required beginning August 1, 2005.

The agency incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy because we believe that the performance of child restraint systems will be more thoroughly and precisely assessed by use of this test dummy's enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation. Since the Hybrid III is more biomechanically based, we believe that it provides a more humanlike response than the Hybrid II version of the dummy.

On June 14, 2005, the agency received a petition from Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel), a child restraint manufacturer, seeking to delay the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. Although the final rule incorporating the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy was finalized in June 2003, Dorel stated that it had anticipated continued compliance of its belt positioning booster seats when tested with the new test dummy. However, Dorel submitted data in support of its petition demonstrating that testing of its belt positioning boosters with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy yielded Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements approximately double that when the same seats were tested with the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy. As such, Dorel stated that some of its belt positioning booster seats would fail to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 as of August 1, 2005. Dorel stated that the high HIC values were a result of chin to chest contact experienced by the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, which was the result of elongation of the Hybrid III neck. 1

In a June 20, 2005 meeting with the agency, Dorel stated that it would be able to redesign its child restraint systems so that they would comply with testing using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, but that they would be unable to do so by August 1, 2005.

In response to this petition, we are making a change to the June 2003 final rule. We are delaying the date for mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy until August 1, 2008. Prior to August 1, 2008, a manufacturer may comply with testing using the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy. Although manufacturers were originally provided two years of lead time for the use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, it was an insufficient period for manufacturers to optimize their product designs to the requirements of the standard when tested with this new test dummy.

The agency continues to believe that the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy provides a better assessment of a child restraint system's performance. However, the agency is aware of the need to allow manufacturers to obtain and gain experience with using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy for child restraint system compliance purposes. We previously determined that two years should be allowed for manufacturers to gain this experience, but this now appears to have been insufficient.

As previously stated, we incorporated the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy because it is considerably more biofidelic than its predecessor, the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy conforming to 49 CFR part 572 subpart I, and has considerably more extensive instrumentation to measure impact responses such as forces, accelerations, moments, and deflections in conducting tests to evaluate vehicle occupant protection system. Under today's final rule, if a manufacturer does not certify to the testing requirements using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, it must still certify to testing requirements using the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy. Given that restraints currently certified using the Hybrid II 6-year-old test dummy have performed well in the real world, we believe that temporarily delaying the compliance date for mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old will not impact safety.

Because the August 1, 2005 compliance date is fast approaching, NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule effectively delaying the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy until August 1, 2008. Further we find good cause to make it effective on August 1, 2005, in order to prevent a reduction in the number of belt positioning booster seats available to consumers. We are accepting comments on this interim final rule. See, Request for Comments section below.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(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 the Executive Order.

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on manufacturers, and only extends the compliance date for certification to testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy.

The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq. ). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final rule affects child restraint manufacturers. According to the size standards of the Small Business Association (at 13 CFR 121.601), the small business size standard for manufacturers of “Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing” (NAICS Code 336360) is 500 employees or fewer. A majority of child restraint manufacturers would be classified as a small business under this standard. However, the final rule does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce child restraint systems. This final extends a compliance date in response to a petition from Dorel, a child restraint manufacturer. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This final rule will 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 E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action will not result in additional expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule does not impose any new collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be obtained.

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a State, or political subdivision of a State, may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in court.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

We have considered the impacts of this final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking action only extends the compliance date for certification of child restraint systems using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. This rulemaking does not require any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov . Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. 2 Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html . DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http:// dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf .

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation ( http://dms.dot.gov/ ).

(2) On that page, click on “Simple Search.”

(3) On the next page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search/ ), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “Search.”

(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded comments are not word searchable.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

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

The 2005 TAC of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 300 metric tons as established by the 2005 and 2006 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (70 FR 8958, February 24, 2005).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the “other rockfish” TAC in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that further catches of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

“Other rockfish” consists of all slope and demersal shelf rockfish.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the prohibition of retention of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

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

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