The Secretary of Agriculture previously delegated authority under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1231 et seq. ), for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) under the regulations at 7 CFR 2.16(a)(1)(xviii), and the Under Secretary, FFAS, delegated authority to the Administrator, Farm Service Agency (FSA), under the regulations at 7 CFR 2.42(a)(20).

Authority was also delegated for the administration of technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment (NRE) under the regulations at 7 CFR 2.20(a)(2)(xx) and 2.20(a)(3)(xiii)(B). The Under Secretary, NRE, delegated authority for the administration of technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program to the Chief, Forest Service, under the regulations at 7 CFR 2.60(a)(20) and to the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, under the regulations at 7 CFR 2.61(a)(13)(ii).

This rule delegates from the Secretary, to the Under Secretary, FFAS, and from the Under Secretary, FFAS, to the Administrator, FSA, the authority to implement technical assistance with respect to the Conservation Reserve Program.

The delegations of authority from the Secretary to the Under Secretary, NRE, and from the Under Secretary, NRE, to the Chief, Forest Service, and to the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, are not changed by this rule.

This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Further, because this rule relates to internal agency management, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12866. Finally, this action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354 et seq. , and is therefore exempt from the provisions of that Act.

The Japanese beetle ( Popillia japonica ) feeds on fruits, vegetables, and ornamental plants and is capable of causing damage to over 300 potential hosts. The Japanese beetle quarantine and regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.48 through 301.48-8 (referred to below as the regulations), quarantine the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia and restrict the interstate movement of aircraft from regulated airports in these States in order to prevent the artificial spread of the Japanese beetle to noninfested States where the Japanese beetle could become established (referred to below as protected States). The list of quarantined States, as well as the list of protected States, can be found in § 301.48.

The Japanese beetle is active during daylight hours only. Under § 301.48-2 of the regulations, an inspector of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) may designate any airport within a quarantined State as a regulated airport if he or she determines that adult populations of Japanese beetle exist during daylight hours at the airport to the degree that aircraft using the airport constitute a threat of artificially spreading the Japanese beetle and aircraft destined for any of the nine protected States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) may be leaving the airport.

Also, under § 301.48-4 of the regulations, aircraft from regulated airports may move interstate to a protected State only if: (1) An inspector, upon visual inspection of the airport and/or the aircraft, determines that the aircraft does not present a threat of artificially spreading the Japanese beetle because adult beetle populations are not present; or (2) the aircraft is opened and loaded only while it is enclosed in a hangar that APHIS has determined to be free of and safeguarded against Japanese beetle; or (3) the aircraft is loaded during the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. (generally non-daylight hours) only or lands and departs during those hours and, in either situation, is kept completely closed while on the ground during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; or (4) if opened and loaded during daylight hours, the aircraft is inspected, treated, and safeguarded in accordance with the requirements described in § 301.48-4(d).

APHIS and State plant health officials constantly monitor the Japanese beetle population in the United States. Trapping surveys indicate that the State of Iowa is now infested with the Japanese beetle. In view of this development, we have determined that the State of Iowa should be listed as a quarantined State prior to the start of the 2006 season of Japanese beetle activity, which begins in mid-June in many parts of the country. Therefore, in this interim rule we are amending the regulations in § 301.48(a) by adding Iowa to the list of quarantined States.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of Japanese beetle into noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the Japanese beetle quarantine and regulations to add the State of Iowa to the list of quarantined States. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of Japanese beetle into noninfested areas of the United States.

In 2002, all agricultural crop receipts for the nine protected States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) totaled $30.6 billion. 1 The majority of these agricultural producers can be classified as small entities under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) criterion of $750,000 or less in annual receipts. Agricultural production is an important part of these nine protected States' economies. Reducing the risk of Japanese beetle introduction into protected States is worth the slight costs associated with inspection and occasional treatment for air carriers with flights to these States that originate in Iowa.

Entities affected by this action will be air carriers flying from regulated airports in Iowa to a protected State. The majority of air cargo is transported by large businesses. According to the SBA, an air carrier with more than 1,500 employees is considered large. The number of small air carriers that will be impacted is not known. We expect economic impacts of the rule may be limited because many air carriers are already treating cargo transported from other quarantined States to the protected States.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be effective beginning on January 1, 2006, apply to all assessable olives from the current crop year, and will continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2005 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.68 to $11.03 per ton of assessable olives from the applicable crop years.

The California olive marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The fiscal year, which is the 12-month period between January 1 and December 31, begins after the corresponding crop year, which is the 12-month period beginning August 1 and ending July 31 of the subsequent year. Fiscal year budget and assessment recommendations are made after the corresponding crop year olive tonnage is reported. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California olives. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2005 and subsequent fiscal years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.

The committee met on December 13, 2005, and made recommendations regarding their fiscal year 2006 expenditures and assessment rate. Subsequently, the committee revised its budget recommendation because it anticipated higher administrative expenses than it had originally estimated. In a mail vote completed on January 27, 2006, the committee unanimously recommended 2006 fiscal year expenditures of $1,301,121 and an assessment rate of $11.03 per ton of assessable olives. In comparison, the budgeted expenditures for fiscal year 2005 were $1,217,014. The assessment rate of $11.03 is $4.65 lower than the rate previously in effect.

The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2006 fiscal year include $800,700 for marketing activities, $290,421 for administration, and $210,000 for research. Budgeted expenditures for these items in 2005 were $680,000, $337,014, and $200,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the committee was derived by considering anticipated fiscal year expenses, actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2005-06 crop year, and additional pertinent factors. The California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) reported assessable olive receipts for the 2005-06 crop year at 114,761 tons, compared to 85,862 tons for the 2004-05 crop year. The increased production of assessable olives for the 2005-06 crop year is due in part to the alternate-bearing nature of olives, with heavy production in one year followed by light production the next. Although the committee's budgeted expenses for fiscal year 2006 are higher than those for 2005, the increased production would yield increased total assessment funds, even at the lower rate, covering the increased expenditures. Additionally, actual administrative expenditures in 2005 were less than the amount budgeted, enabling the committee to carry excess funds into the 2006 fiscal year and offset the assessments needed to cover budgeted expenses.

Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (7 CFR 932.40).

The assessable tonnage for the 2006 fiscal year is expected to be slightly less than the 2005-06 crop receipts of 114,761 tons reported by CASS because some olives may be diverted by handlers to uses that are exempt from marketing order requirements.

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2006 budget and those for subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 850 producers of olives in the production area. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000. Based upon information from the committee, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities.

There are two handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. At the time the interim final rule was published, the definition of small agricultural service firms included those whose annual receipts were less than $6,000,000, and both handlers were classified as large entities. Subsequently, the definition of small agricultural service firms was changed to include those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Based upon information from the committee, both handlers may be classified as large entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2006 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.68 to $11.03 per ton of assessable olives. The committee unanimously recommended 2006 expenditures of $1,301,121 and an assessment rate of $11.03 per ton. The assessment rate is $4.65 lower than the rate previously in effect.

The quantity of assessable olive receipts for the 2005-06 crop year was reported by CASS to be 114,761 tons, but the actual assessable tonnage for the 2006 fiscal year is expected to be slightly lower. This is because some of the receipts are expected to be diverted by handlers to exempt outlets on which assessments are not paid.

The $11.03 per ton assessment rate should be adequate to meet this year's expenses when combined with funds from the authorized reserve and interest income. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of about one fiscal year's expenses (7 CFR 932.40).

Expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2006 fiscal year include $800,700 for marketing development, $290,421 for administration, and $210,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2005 were $680,000, $337,014, and $200,000, respectively.

Assessable olive receipts for the 2005-06 crop year were 114,761 tons, compared to 85,862 tons for the 2004-05 crop year. The increased production of assessable olives will yield increased assessment funds, even at the lower rate. These funds, along with unused assessments from the 2005 fiscal year that have been carried into 2006, and interest income, are adequate to cover the increased expenditures.

The committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2006 expenditures of $1,301,121. This reflects increases in the committee's research and market development budgets and a decrease in the administrative budget compared to the previous year's budget. The committee recommended a larger research budget intended to further the study of olive fly management and development of a mechanical olive harvesting method. The 2006 marketing program recommendation includes participation in media activities in conjunction with the release of a new diet plan book; translation of some of the committee's education and nutrition materials into Spanish; and continuation of several outreach activities including cookbook contributions, Web site development, and educational programs for school children. Recommended decreases in the administrative budget are due mainly to personnel changes in the committee's staff.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered information from various sources, such as the committee's Executive, Market Development, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate spending levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various research and marketing projects to the olive industry and the anticipated olive production. The assessment rate of $11.03 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal year indicates that the grower price for the 2005-06 crop year is estimated to be approximately $714 per ton for canning fruit and $314 per ton for limited-use sizes, leaving the balance as unusable cull fruit. Approximately 76 percent of a ton of olives are canning fruit sizes and 17 percent are limited use sizes, leaving the balance as unusable cull fruit. Total grower revenue on 114,761 tons would then be $73,485,966, given the percentage of canning and limited-use sizes and current grower prices for those sizes. Therefore, with an assessment rate decreased from $15.68 to $11.03, the estimated assessment revenue is expected to be approximately 1.72 percent of grower revenue.

This action continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the December 13, 2005, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12614). Copies of the rule were faxed to both olive handlers. Finally, the interim rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the interim final rule. The comment period ended on May 12, 2006, and no comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab/html . Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is herby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

The Bank System consists of 12 Banks and the Office of Finance (OF). The Banks are instrumentalities of the United States organized under the authority of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act). 12 U.S.C. 1421 et seq. The Banks also are “government sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), i.e. , federally chartered but privately owned institutions created by Congress to support the financing of housing and community lending by their members. See 12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3)(B)(ii), 1430(i), and 1430(j). By virtue of their GSE status, the Banks are able to borrow in the capital markets at favorable rates. The Banks are then able to pass along that funding advantage to their members—and ultimately to consumers—by providing advances (secured loans) and other financial services to their members (principally, depository institutions) at rates that the members generally could not obtain elsewhere.

The Banks, along with the OF, operate under the supervision of the Finance Board. The primary duty of the Finance Board is to ensure that the Banks operate in a financially safe and sound manner. Consistent with that duty, the Finance Board is required to supervise the Banks, ensure that they carry out their housing finance mission, and ensure that they remain adequately capitalized and able to raise funds in the capital markets. 12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3)(A) and (B).

Congress has delegated to the Finance Board broad authority to fulfill its statutory mandates. Section 2B of the Bank Act states that the Finance Board has the power “[t]o supervise the Federal Home Loan Banks and to promulgate and enforce such regulations and orders as are necessary from time to time to carry out the provisions of this chapter [ i.e. , Chapter 11 of Title 12, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1421-1449].” 12 U.S.C. 1422b(a)(1). Section 20 of the Bank Act provides the Finance Board with the authority to require, “from time to time, [but] at least annually,” examinations and reports of condition of all the Banks in such form as the Finance Board prescribes. 12 U.S.C. 1440. Section 20 also vests in Finance Board examiners “the same powers and privileges as are vested in” examiners under the National Bank Act and the Federal Reserve Act. These Acts, in turn, provide examiners with sweeping powers, including the power to “make a thorough examination of all the affairs of the bank.” 12 U.S.C. 481. Thus, the Finance Board and its examiners have been vested with broad access to the books, records, and information of the Banks in order to fulfill the statutory mission of the Finance Board.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of this broad access to the ability of financial institution regulators to perform their supervisory functions. In United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963), the Court stated:

Historically, the Finance Board has imposed reporting requirements in a variety of ways. Some requirements, such as those related to the call report, have been imposed by informal directives issued by staff. For other requirements, the Finance Board has used its rulemaking authority. 12 U.S.C. 1422b(a)(1).

On February 9, 2005, the Board of Directors approved for publication a proposed rule that would reorganize the way the Finance Board imposes reporting requirements by creating a Data Reporting Manual (DRM) that would contain certain reporting requirements currently in regulations or issued by Finance Board staff. See Resolution Number 2005-04 (Feb. 9, 2005), published at 770 FR 9551 (Feb. 28, 2005). 1 For each subject matter, the DRM includes instructions addressing data definitions as well as requirements concerning data elements, reporting format, reporting method, e.g. , electronic or paper, record retention, timeliness, reporting frequency, and certification. Going forward, changes to the reporting requirements will be made by amendments to the DRM.

The proposed rule included substantive regulatory changes that would add a new part 914, which addresses a Bank's obligation with respect to reporting requirements and making its books and records available to the Finance Board. It also would add a new section to part 917, which imposes on each Bank's board of directors the obligation to establish policies and procedures with respect to regulatory reporting. In July 2005, the Board of Directors created the DRM and located in it reporting requirements for the Call Report System. See Resolution Number 2005-14 (July 13, 2005). In August 2005, the Finance Board added to the DRM reporting requirements related to Bank members. See Resolution Number 2005-15 (Aug. 10, 2005). The Finance Board is continuing this effort by relocating from regulations to the DRM data reporting requirements concerning: Purchases of Bank stock by member banks (12 CFR 925.20(e)); advances and commitments outstanding to each Bank member (12 CFR 950.4(e)); Acquired Member Assets (AMA) (12 CFR 955.4); and forms related to Bank director eligibility (12 CFR 915.7 and 915.12(a)).

In the proposed rule, the Finance Board considered placing in the DRM reporting requirements for a Bank's strategic business plan (12 CFR 917.5(c)); Advisory Councils (12 CFR 951.4(f)(3)); the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund (12 CFR 951.3(d) and 951.15(b)); and Community Investment Cash Advance (CICA) Programs (12 CFR 952.6(a)). Because these requirements do not involve the periodic reporting of empirical data, we have determined that these requirements are better left in Finance Board regulations.

The DRM represents an enforceable order issued pursuant to the Finance Board's investigatory powers. The reorganization of reporting requirements and the amendments to Finance Board regulations will allow the Finance Board to address problems it has experienced with the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of data reporting by the Banks. The Bank Act gives the Finance Board enforcement authority to redress, among other things, violations of the Bank Act, or any law, order, rule, or regulation. 12 U.S.C. 1422b(a)(5). The Finance Board will deem data reporting problems as violations of an investigatory order and, where applicable, violations of the regulations being added today in 12 CFR part 914.

Reporting requirements imposed pursuant to the Finance Board's investigatory powers are not subject to the notice and comment provisions of the APA. See Appeal of FTC Line of Business Report Litigation, 595 F.2d at 695-696. Nevertheless, the Finance Board recognizes that changes to reporting requirements can impose regulatory burden. The Finance Board also recognizes the utility of input from the Banks and the public in determining what information is appropriate to collect. Thus, where practicable, Finance Board staff will consult with the Banks and the public with respect to significant changes in the DRM before changes are made. Moreover, information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), such as those related to the AMA rule, will continue to be published in the Federal Register for comment in accordance with the PRA.

The Finance Board is adding a new part 914 to its regulations that addresses a Bank's obligation with respect to reporting requirements and makes its books and records available to the Finance Board. Section 914.1 contains a number of provisions directed at how a Bank reports data to the Finance Board and makes its books and records available to Finance Board examiners. Section 914.1(a) defines the term Regulatory Report to mean any report of raw or summary data required to evaluate the safe and sound condition and operations of a Bank or to determine compliance with any: (1) Provision in the Bank Act, or any law, order, rule, or regulation; (2) condition imposed in writing by the Finance Board in connection with the granting of any application or other request by a Bank; or (3) written agreement entered into by the Finance Board and a Bank. Section 914.1(b) provides examples of a Regulatory Report, including the call report and reports of instrument-level data submitted for risk assessment purposes. The term Regulatory Report also includes reports related to a Bank's housing mission achievement, such as reports related to AMA, a Bank's Affordable Housing Program (AHP), Community Investment Program (CIP), and other CICA programs.

Section 914.2 requires each Bank to file Regulatory Reports with the Finance Board pursuant to the Finance Board's forms and instructions for the reports. These reports must be filed no later than the deadline established by the Finance Board. In some cases, this will involve reporting at regular intervals; in other cases, it will involve responding to Finance Board requests for information that are in addition to the information submitted at regular intervals.

Section 914.3 requires each Bank to make its books and records available upon request by the Finance Board within a reasonable period at a location acceptable to the Finance Board. Section 914.3 establishes presumptions about what the Finance Board considers a reasonable period of time to respond to requests that occur during and outside of an ongoing examination as well as those that occur at other times.

The Finance Board is revising various reporting requirements set forth in parts 915, 925, 950, and 955 to refer the reader to forms and instructions issued pursuant to the DRM.

In response to the February 2005 proposed rule, the Finance Board received four comments—three from Banks and one from a law firm representing a fourth Bank. These comments covered the following areas.

The four commenters expressed concern that reporting requirements could be imposed in the future without giving the Banks or the public an opportunity to comment. One commenter requested that the final rule provide procedures by which the Finance Board will determine if an amendment would impose regulatory burden or would constitute a significant change that merits input from the Banks and public through the comment process.

As discussed in the proposed rule, reporting requirements imposed pursuant to the Finance Board's investigatory powers are not subject to the notice and comment provisions of the APA. 2 In some cases, new reporting requirements or revisions to existing requirements trigger the notice and comment requirements of the PRA. Other reporting requirements, such as those related to call reports, are not covered by the PRA.

The Finance Board recognizes that changes to reporting requirements can impose regulatory burden. The Finance Board also recognizes the utility of input from the Banks and the public in determining what information is appropriate to collect and what is the most efficient way to collect needed information. Thus, as was indicated in the proposed rule, the Finance Board intends, where practicable, to consult with the Banks and the public with respect to substantial changes to reporting requirements, regardless of whether the APA or PRA apply.

Three of the four commenters expressed concern that a violation of a reporting requirement could be the basis for sanctions against a Bank without any additional due process. One commenter indicated that it believes that non-compliance with a reporting requirement alone would not suffice to cause an immediate violation resulting in sanctions. Rather, the commenter believes that non-compliance would have to go to a judicial forum to determine whether the agency was entitled to the information it was seeking.

The Bank Act authorizes the Finance Board to bring an enforcement action in the face of conduct that violates any order imposed in writing by the Finance Board. 12 U.S.C. 1422b(a)(5). The Finance Board also may bring an enforcement action if a Bank engages in an unsafe or unsound banking practice, and courts have held that frustrating a regulator's gathering of information constitutes an unsafe or unsound banking practice. See Seidman v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 37 F.3d 911, 936-937 (3rd Cir. 1994).

In any formal enforcement action by the Finance Board related to a data reporting violation, the process will guarantee all constitutional and statutory rights, including a review in a judicial forum before the enforcement action becomes final. Under Finance Board regulations, the Finance Board would initiate an enforcement action by issuing a notice of charges. 12 CFR 908.40. If the Bank, director, or executive officer disputed the charges, a presiding officer would hold a hearing and issue a recommendation to the Finance Board. 12 CFR 908.60 and 908.63. If, after receiving the presiding officer's recommendation, the Finance Board's board of directors found that the charges were sustained and issued a cease and desist order or imposed civil money penalties, the affected party would have the option of appealing the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 12 CFR 908.10.

Two Banks commented that establishing the DRM as an enforceable order is inconsistent with the approach taken by other federal bank regulators with respect to information gathering. One Bank cited the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Handbook on Bank Supervisory Processes to demonstrate that, in the event of disagreements between examiners and a bank, it is the OCC's policy to resolve the dispute fairly and expeditiously in an informal, amicable manner. The Bank also made reference to similar publication by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

The examples cited by the commenters appear to relate to disagreements that arise during an examination or inquiry of a specific institution. For reporting requirements directed at all institutions within a banking agencies' purview, such as those related to the call report, the banking agencies impose reporting requirements in a manner closely similar to the way the Finance Board has exercised such powers here. For example, call report requirements for insured depository institutions and changes to such requirements are imposed by amending the forms and instructions for the call report. See 12 CFR part 304. These forms and instructions, like the DRM discussed above, represent enforceable orders issued as a proper exercise of an agency's investigatory powers. When a depository institution fails to comply with a reporting requirement, its primary banking regulator routinely imposes penalties for reporting violations including violations that might seem de minimis .

Another Bank commented that other federal banking regulators do not view the various manuals they promulgate as definitive statements carrying the force of law. Instead, the commenter claimed, the manuals of other federal banking regulators are not intended to be strictly binding on either the regulator or the regulated institution. The commenter appears to be confusing a basic principal of administrative law that staff policy guidance, such as those put in manuals at some agencies, ordinarily does not carry the force of law. Here, the data reporting requirements are being issued by the Finance Board's Board of Directors pursuant to statutory authority to require reports. Compiling the reporting requirements in the DRM is solely a matter of convenience and in no way diminishes the legal authority with which they were adopted and the force of law.

One Bank commented that orders usually arise in adjudicatory or investigative proceeding that is specific to a particular entity. The Bank wrote that it is doubtful that the law allows the Finance Board, as part of its regulatory process, to grant itself the power to issue an enforceable order preemptively and with application to all of the Banks particularly in view of the fact that the Banks have the right to challenge a request for privileged or confidential legal advice. Another Bank and the law firm commenter also expressed concerns that the Finance Board might include privileged or confidential material among the information it sought from all Banks or from one particular Bank. As discussed in the proposed rule, case law has long recognized Congress' authority to give a regulatory agency investigatory powers that include the power to require informational reports. There is no dispute that section 20 gives the Finance Board investigatory power to obtain information reports about the Banks.

Where Congress, as here, has given an agency investigatory powers, an agency's exercise of that power will be upheld if the request for information is “reasonably relevant.” FTC v. Invention Submission Corp., 965 F.2d 1086, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Courts have said that an agency's own appraisal of relevancy must be accepted as long as it is not “obviously wrong.” Id. In exercising its authority to create reporting requirements, the Finance Board intends to observe all applicable privileges.

One commenter noted that the Finance Board already has established a process for clarifying regulatory reporting requirements through Advisory Bulletins and other supervisory guidance. The commenter claimed that nothing in the proposed rule stated that the Finance Board would stop issuing Advisory Bulletins or other supervisory letters apart from the DRM. This omission creates the potential, the commenter claimed, for discrepancies between the DRM and other supervisory guidance. The commenter recommended that the Finance Board revise the proposed rule to ensure that no such discrepancies or ambiguities are created in the reporting requirements. Another commenter made a similar comment.

A commenter noted that not all data reporting requirements will be contained in the DRM. The Bank suggested that the DRM include an appendix clearly describing which reporting requirements are not in the DRM and where such reporting requirements are located. Without guidance as to when the DRM applies and when to consult the regulations, the commenter argued, the data reporting requirements may, in practice, become more confusing for the Banks. Another commenter expressed a similar point. For reporting requirements that currently are in the Finance Board regulations, the Finance Board will leave a reference that directs a reader to the DRM. The Finance Board will adopt the recommendation of including an appendix to the DRM that lists reporting requirements by topic and indicates where they may be found.

Two commenters opposed adopting a presumption in § 914.3 of 1 business day and 3 business days for a reasonable period for complying with an examiner's request for documents. These commenters recommended that, when considering whether a Bank complied with an examiner's request in a reasonable period of time, the Finance Board should consider: (a) Whether the data are available and finalized; (b) whether there are any information technology issues affecting the ability to respond or analyze the response (on either the Finance Board's or a Bank's part); (c) whether the applicable business units are able to concentrate on these requests exclusively; (d) whether the applicable committees are available to review and approve the responses; and (e) whether any of the information is privileged.

The Finance Board believes that the time periods set out in the proposed rule are reasonable. Because they are only presumptions, a Bank may cite the factors listed by the commenters, or other factors, to demonstrate that in a particular instance, a reasonable period to comply with an examiner's request is longer than the time periods set out in the regulation.

One commenter wrote that it believes that the proposal to amend part 917 to require the board of directors of a Bank to establish policies and procedures with respect to regulatory reporting was redundant given other requirements that require a Bank's board of directors to ensure compliance generally with the regulatory requirements mandated by the Finance Board.

The Finance Board acknowledges that the commenter has raised a valid concern. A Bank's obligation to provide the Finance Board with information that is accurate, timely, and complete derives from the chapters that have been added to the DRM and in the new part 914 that is recommended for the final rule. Finance Board regulations already make clear that a Bank's board of directors retains ultimate responsibility for a Bank's management (12 CFR 917.2(a)). Upon further reflection, the Finance Board believes that adding the proposed part 917 amendment may cause a Bank's board to focus on a Bank's processes for regulatory reporting at the expense of focusing on outcomes of whether such reporting is timely, accurate, and complete. Thus, the final rule does not include the proposed § 917.11.

The final rule will have no substantive effect on any collection of information covered by the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, the Finance Board did not submit the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

As part of the reorganization of reporting requirements, the Board of Directors added the AMA reporting requirements to the DRM. See Resolution Number 2006-11 (June 14, 2006). The AMA reporting requirements, which are being moved from 12 CFR part 955 (specifically, § 955.4 and Appendices A and B) to the DRM as a result of this final rule, are contained an information collection entitled “Federal Home Loan Bank Acquired Member Assets, Core Mission Activities, Investments and Advances.” The OMB control number for this information collection is 3069-0058, and it is due to expire on March 31, 2007. In November 2005, the Finance Board published a PRA notice soliciting comments on the changes to the AMA reporting requirements. See 70 FR 66413 (Nov. 2, 2005). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , the Finance Board is publishing the second PRA notice with respect to the AMA reporting requirements and also is submitting the entire information collection, with the AMA reporting changes, to OMB for review and approval of a 3 year extension of the control number.

The final rule applies only to the Banks, which do not come within the meaning of “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Thus, in accordance with section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Finance Board hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 notice 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. CE251.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

In early October 2005, Rickenbacker Avionics made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the Rockwell Twin Commander 690B, which is currently approved under Type Certificate No. 2A4. The proposed modification incorporates novel or unusual design features that are vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR, part 21, § 21.101, Rickenbacker Avionics must show that the Twin Commander 690B aircraft continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in the original type certification basis for each model, as listed on the Type Data Sheet 2A4, or the applicable regulations and the additional provisions in effect on the date of application for this Supplemental Type Change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference and the additional systems related provisions that cover the EFIS installation include: §§ 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.1311, 23.1321, 23.1322, 23.1323, 23.1331, 23.1353, and 23.1357 at the amendment level appropriate for the application date; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Additional information regarding the certification basis for this STC is available from the applicant.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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 § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.

Rickenbacker Avionics plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFS-50 EFIS and associated components, potentially susceptible to the HIRF environment that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.

Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid-state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.

The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.

These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” refers to functions, whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Rockwell Twin Commander Model 690B airplanes. Should Rickenbacker Avionics apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate, Type Certificate No. 2A4, to incorporate 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 one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

On April 17, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Pilatus PC-6 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20919). The NPRM proposed to revise AD 68-17-03 with a new AD that would retain all actions currently required by AD 68-17-03 and would clarify the applicability of the affected airplanes by:

• Identifying those airplanes produced in the United States through a licensing agreement with the Fairchild Republic Company; and

• Listing all Pilatus Model PC-6 series airplanes on Type Certificate Data Sheet No. 7A15 in the applicability section.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received one comment in favor of the proposed AD.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do the inspection:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-24094; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-20-AD” in your request.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation 250-B and 250-C series turboprop and turboshaft engines with certain P/Ns of gas producer rotor assembly tie bolts manufactured by EXTEX Ltd., Pacific Sky Supply Inc., RRC, and Superior Air Parts Inc. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68381). That action proposed to require operators to remove from service affected gas producer rotor assembly tie bolts.

You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

One commenter requests that the PMA tie bolts be excluded from the AD action, because there are no reported failures of the PMA tie bolts. Also, the commenter states that there are numerous opportunities for significant design differences between PMA tie bolts approved under Test and Computation, and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) tie bolts.

We do not agree. Although there are no reported failures of PMA parts, the tie bolts from all four manufacturers are essentially the same and share many common features. The fact that there are no reported failures of PMA parts is statistically insignificant since the PMA parts only account for several hundred of the approximately 5,000 tie bolts in service, and there have been only 11 failures. Additionally, failures of a specific part number are not a prerequisite for declaring an unsafe condition. A failure mode's net result on the product (in this case loss of engine power, first stage turbine wheel overspeed, and an uncontained engine failure); the assumed or predicted rate of occurrence, and other factors linking affected or suspect parts to failed parts, help make that decision. While minor differences may exist between the OEM tie bolts and the PMA tie bolts, the commenter gave no justification as to how those unnamed differences should exempt the PMA parts from this AD action. Finally, we did compare design data as part of the decision making process.

The same commenter requests that we withdraw the proposed AD and not re-issue it until we are prepared to fully disclose what design features caused the tie bolt failures. The commenter further states that since the tie bolt requires a sustained preload for safe operation, one would expect that maintenance or assembly practices are more likely contributors, as the likelihood of high-cycle-fatigue failures increases if the preload is not established or maintained correctly.

We do not agree. While they may have minor differences between them, the tie bolts from all four manufacturers are essentially the same and share many common features. The commenter provides no data to support the assertion that maintenance or assembly practices are more likely contributors to the high-cycle-fatigue failures. Analysis of the failures did not find any assembly problems. We did not change the AD.

The same commenter requests that we provide instructions on how to make the engine airworthy. The commenter states that the AD action essentially specifies an action of “remove, and do not reinstall, tie bolt part numbers listed in Table 1.” The commenter assumes there will be instructions provided on how to make the engine airworthy.

We partially agree. While there is no way to make the removed tie bolts airworthy, we reworded the AD to include a statement that the removed tie bolts be replaced with tie bolts with P/Ns that are not listed in Table 1 of the AD.

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

About 700 RRC 250-B and 250-C series turboprop and turboshaft engines with affected P/Ns of gas producer rotor assembly tie bolts manufactured by EXTEX Ltd., Pacific Sky Supply Inc., Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC), and Superior Air Parts Inc., installed on aircraft of U.S. registry, will be affected by this AD. We also estimate that it will take about 20 workhours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per workhour. Required parts will cost about $421 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $1,204,700.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). That second supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15084). The second supplemental NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting for cracking in the web of nose rib 7 of the inner flap on the wings, performing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary, and eventually replacing nose rib 7 with a new, improved rib to terminate the inspections.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the second supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the second supplemental NPRM.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $65 per hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 3, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd. (PAC) 750XL airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12305). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2005-26-53, Amendment 39-14451 (71 FR 2453, January 17, 2006), and require you to remove rivets that have not been fully age hardened and replace them with bolts, washers, and nuts in specific locations where reduction in rivet strength affects overall structural capability. The proposed AD would retain the airplane weight AFM Limitations requirement of AD 2005-26-53 until the rivets are replaced with the bolts, washers, and nuts.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do the replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-23579; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-02-AD” in your request.

DOL's strategic outcome goal 4.2 measures the agency's success in creating a regulatory structure that promotes compliance flexibility and reduces regulatory burden. As part of this strategic goal, DOL is conducting an ongoing review of its regulations governing labor standards, pensions, health care, and worker safety to ensure that these references in the CFR are accurate and current. This final rule is the first of a series of updates to correct or remove obsolete non-substantive or nomenclature references in the CFR.

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is unnecessary since the agency is merely updating non-substantive and nomenclature references.

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of Regulations. The agency has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, there is no requirement for an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) pertaining to regulatory flexibility do not apply to this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

This final rule is not subject to section 350(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501) since it does not contain any new collection of information requirements.

The Department has determined that these amendments need not be published as a proposed rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), since several of these changes are interpretive, procedural in nature, or relate to agency organization. Because this final rule does not make substantive amendments, the Department of Labor has determined that delaying the effective date of the rule is unnecessary and good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to make this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

This rule is not classified as a “rule” under Chapter 8 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, because it is a rule pertaining to agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).

These temporary regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). For this reason, the collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2020. Responses to this collection of information are mandatory.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) requires a U.S. person to furnish, with respect to any foreign business entity which such person controls, certain information as prescribed by the Secretary. More specifically, section 6038(a)(1)(D) provides that the information to be furnished includes information relating to transactions between the foreign business entity and (i) such U.S. person, (ii) any corporation or partnership controlled by such U.S. person, and (iii) any U.S. person owning at the time the transaction takes place a 10 percent or greater interest in the foreign business entity.

Section 6038A requires certain foreign-owned domestic corporations to furnish certain information prescribed by the Secretary. In particular, section 6038A(a) requires a 25 percent foreign-owned domestic corporation to furnish information with respect to certain transactions between such corporation and certain related parties.

The final regulations are revised to remove and correct obsolete references to a form and IRS offices. The temporary regulations conform the current final regulations to specific statutory changes and make other minor clarifications to those final regulations.

Section 1.6038-2 provides that each U.S. person, with respect to each foreign corporation such person controls, must furnish the required information on a Form 5471, “Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations”, (or, in the case of taxable years that ended before December 31, 1982, on a Form 2952, “Information Return with Respect to Foreign Controlled Corporations”). Section 1.6038-2(f) sets forth the information that must be provided on the applicable form. The information that must be reported includes a summary showing the total amount of each of the types of transactions of the corporation specified in § 1.6038-2(f)(11). In some cases, § 1.6038-2(f)(11) requires reporting of sales and purchases of items. See § 1.6038-2(f)(11)(i) (stock in trade) and (iii) (certain intangibles). In other cases, it requires reporting only of purchases. See § 1.6038-2(f)(11)(ii) (tangible property other than stock in trade). The temporary regulations modify the rules of the final regulations to include the reporting of sales and purchases, instead of just purchases, of tangible property. The temporary regulations also modify the current rules to include the reporting of premiums paid, instead of just premiums received, for insurance or reinsurance. This consistent treatment of sales and purchases, and premiums paid and received, more fully implements the purpose of section 6038. It also conforms the rules in § 1.6038-2 to analogous reporting rules. See § 1.6038A-2(b)(3)(ii) (reporting requirements for foreign-owned domestic corporations).

It has come to the IRS' attention that some foreign corporations that use an accrual method of accounting may not be properly reporting the transactions described in § 1.6038-2(f)(11). Accordingly, § 1.6038-2T(f)(12) modifies the rules of the final regulations to clarify that foreign corporations that use an accrual method of accounting must report the summary of the total amount of the transactions described in § 1.6038-2T(f)(11) on an accrual basis. To maintain conformity, § 1.6038A-2(b)(8), which provides a similar rule for foreign-owned domestic corporations, has been similarly clarified.

Section 6038(b)(1), as amended by the TRA ‘97, provides for a $10,000 penalty for failure to furnish the required information within the time prescribed under section 6038(a)(2). Section 6038(b)(2), as amended by the TRA ‘97, also provides for additional $10,000 penalties (not to exceed a total of $50,000) when there is a continuing failure to furnish the required information. Section 1.6038-2(k)(1) sets forth the dollar amounts of the penalty for failure to furnish the information required under section 6038. To conform to the statutory change made by the TRA ‘97, § 1.6038-2(k)(1) has been amended to reflect the increased penalty amounts.

Section 6038(c)(4)(B) and § 1.6038-2(k)(3) provide a reasonable cause exception for failure to furnish the information required under section 6038. Some questions have arisen regarding how one determines, after reasonable cause has been established, the time prescribed for furnishing the information under § 1.6038-2(i) (time and place for filing return) and the 90-day period described in § 1.6038-2(k)(1)(ii) (increase in penalty for continued failure after notification) and § 1.6038-2(k)(2)(iv)(A) (reduction of foreign tax credit for continued failure after notice). Two examples have been added in § 1.6038-2T(k)(5) to illustrate the determination, after reasonable cause has been established under § 1.6038-2(k)(3)(i), of the time for filing the Form 5471, and the beginning of the 90-day period.

The temporary regulations also modify the rules of the final regulations to include transactions between the foreign corporation and controlled partnerships, implementing a change made by section 1142 of the TRA ‘97.

Section 1.6038-2 of the regulations has been updated to remove references to obsolete Form 2952 and to reflect that the Director of Field Operations has replaced the district director and the Field Director has replaced the director of the service center.

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 has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-reference notice of proposed ruling making published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these final and 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 Kate Y. Hwa, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

An interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12798-12805), that addressed three provisions of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA-05) (Pub. L. 108-375). That interim final rule established requirements and procedures to make permanent two provisions of the NDAA-05. Section 706 of the NDAA-05 made permanent the temporary revisions to the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP), enacted in section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (NDAA-04) (Pub.L. 18-136) and section 1117 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Emergency Supplemental) (Pub. L.108-106). Section 703 of the NDAA-05 made permanent the earlier TRICARE eligibility for certain reserve component members authorized by section 703 of the NDAA-04 and section 1116 of the Emergency Supplemental. A separate final rule will be issued for the requirements established by sections 703 and 706 of the NDAA for FY05.

The interim final rule published on March 16, 2005, also established requirements and procedures for implementation of TRICARE Reserve Select, the program authorized by section 701 of the NDAA-05 for premium-based medical coverage for certain members of the Selected Reserve and their family members. Before a final rule could be issued subsequent to the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12798-12805), for the TRICARE Reserve Select program, it became evident that subsequent legislation would likely amend the statutory provisions in section 701 of the NDAA-05 implemented in the interim final rule.

Therefore, this interim rule contains the provisions of the former interim rule on the TRICARE Reserve Select program (70 FR 12798-12805) and addresses two provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (NDAA-06) (Pub. L. 109-163). First, section 701 of the NDAA-06 contains several provisions to enhance the TRICARE Reserve Select program implemented in fulfillment of section 701 of the NDAA-05. Second, section 702 of the NDAA-06 expands the TRICARE Reserve Select program to make it available to all members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve by providing the statutory basis to establish two tiers of premium sharing subject to a number of additional specific statutory requirements, which are outlined in this regulation. These two tiers are in addition to the premium sharing tier established by section 701 of the NDAA-05.

The law authorizing the TRICARE Reserve Select program uses the term “eligibility” to identify conditions under which a Reserve component member may purchase coverage. For purposes of program administration, the terms “qualifying” or “qualified” shall generally be used in lieu of such terms as “eligibility” or “eligible” to refer to a Reserve component member who meets the program requirements allowing purchase of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage.

This interim rule introduces certain terminology for TRICARE Reserve Select intended to reflect critical elements that distinguish it from other long-established TRICARE health programs. For instance, the effective date of eligibility for TRICARE has long been understood to mean that the eligible individual may obtain care under the military health system as of that date. However, that is not what it means in the context of TRICARE Reserve Select. To avoid the inevitable misunderstanding, this rule uses 239 the term “qualify” to mean that the member's reserve component has validated that the member has satisfied all the “qualifications” that must be met before the member is authorized to purchase coverage under a particular tier. Only then may the member purchase coverage by taking further action to submit a completed application along with payment of a one month premium. The term “coverage” indicates the benefit of TRICARE covering claims submitted by TRICARE authorized providers, hospitals, and suppliers for payment of covered services, supplies, and equipment.

A. Establishment of the TRICARE Reserve Select Program (paragraph 199.24(a)). This paragraph describes the nature, purpose, statutory basis, scope, and major features of TRICARE Reserve Select, a premium-based medical coverage program that was made available worldwide to certain members of the Selected Reserve and their family members. TRICARE Reserve Select is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1076b and 10 U.S.C. 1076d.

The major features of the program include the following. TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is available for purchase by any Selected Reserve member if the member fulfills all of the statutory qualifications for one of the three premium tiers. The percentage of the total amount of the premium that members pay in each of the three premium tiers is prescribed by law: 28% for Tier 1,50% for Tier 2, and 85% for Tier 3. Within each tier there is one premium rate for self-only coverage and one premium rate for self and family coverage. Additionally, TRICARE rules apply unless otherwise specified; certain special TRICARE programs are not part of TRICARE Reserve Select, including the Extended Health Care Option (ECHO) program, the Special Supplemental Food Program (also known as the Women, Infants, and Children—Overseas Program), and the Supplemental 240 Health Care Program, except when referred by a Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) provider for incidental consults and the MTF provider maintains clinical control over the episode of care. The TRICARE Dental Program is already available under 10 USC 1076a to all members of the Selected Reserve and their family members whether or not they purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage.

Under TRICARE Reserve Select, Selected Reserve members who fulfill all of the statutory qualifications for one of the three premium tiers may purchase either the self-only type of coverage or the self and family type of coverage by submitting a completed application form along with the appropriate monthly premium at the time of enrollment. When their coverage becomes effective, TRICARE Reserve Select beneficiaries receive the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) benefit. TRICARE Reserve Select features the deductible and cost share provisions of the TRICARE Standard (and Extra) plan for active duty family members (ADFM) for both the member and covered family members.

B. TRICARE Reserve Select premium tiers (paragraph 199.24(b)). Members are charged premiums for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select that represent a portion of the total amount that the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) determines on an appropriate actuarial basis as being appropriate for coverage under the TRICARE Standard benefit for the TRICARE Reserve Select eligible population.

Members may qualify for one of three tiers of premium sharing with the Department of Defense. The first tier was established by section 701 of the NDAA-05 as 28% of the total cost of the premium and implemented in accordance with regulation issued March 16,2005, (70 FR 12798-12805).

Selected Reserve members who qualify to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier 1 shall pay 28% of the total cost of the premium. In the event of the death of a member of the Selected Reserve who is covered by TRICARE Reserve Select at the time of death, the premium amount shall be at the self-only rate if there is only one surviving family member to be covered by TRICARE Reserve Select and at the self and family rate if there are two or more survivors to be covered by TRICARE Reserve Select.

The NDAA-06 added two more tiers of premium sharing for members who may qualify as specified in paragraph 199.24(c). Selected Reserve members who qualify to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier 2 shall pay 50% of the total cost of the premium. Selected Reserve members who qualify to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier 3 shall pay 85% of the total cost of the premium.

Annual rates for the first year TRICARE Reserve Select was offered (calendar year 2005) were based on the annual premiums for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Standard Service Benefit Plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, a nationwide plan closely resembling TRICARE Standard (and Extra) coverage, with an adjustment based on estimated differences in covered populations, as determined by the ASD(HA).

Based on an analysis of demographic differences between Blue Cross and Blue Shield participants and beneficiaries eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select, the adjustment amount in calendar year 2005 represented a 32% reduction from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield annual premium for self-only coverage and represented an 8% reduction from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield annual premium for self and family coverage. (The difference in the percentage reductions between self-only and self and family premiums is due to the disproportionately high number of high cost, single, elderly retiree federal employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield self-only coverage).

Premiums are to be paid monthly, except as otherwise established as part of the administrative implementation of TRICARE Reserve Select. Monthly premium rates are established and updated annually to maintain an appropriate relationship with the annual changes in Blue Cross and Blue Shield premiums, or by other adjustment methodology determined to be appropriate by the ASD(HA).

Separate rates will be established and updated annually for each of the two types of coverage, self-only and self and family, within each of the three tiers on a calendar year basis and are effective on the first of January each year. The monthly rate for each month of a calendar year is one-twelfth of the annual rate for that calendar year.

In addition to these annual premium changes, premium adjustments may also be made prospectively for any calendar year to reflect any significant program changes or any actual experience in the costs of administering the TRICARE Reserve Select Program.

For calendar year 2005, the total annual premium for self-only coverage was $3,214 and the total annual premium for self and family coverage was $9,985. The member's portion of the annual premium for self-only coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select in Tier 1 was $900 ($75 monthly). The member's portion of the annual premium for self and family coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select in Tier 1 was $2,796 ($233 monthly).

For calendar year 2006, the total annual premium for self-only coverage increased 8.5% to $3,487 (rounded to the nearest dollar) and the total annual premium (Tier 1) for self and family coverage increased 8.5% to $10,834 (rounded to the nearest dollar). The 8.5% increase mirrors the increase in Blue Cross and Blue Shield rates in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program.

(a) For calendar year 2006, the member's portion in Tier 1 is 28% of the annual premium. Self-only coverage is $972 ($81 monthly). Self and family coverage is $3,036 ($253 monthly).

(b) For calendar year 2006, the member's portion in Tier 2 is 50% of the annual premium. Self-only coverage is $1,743.48 ($145.29 monthly). Self and family coverage is $5,417.04 ($451.42 monthly).

(b) For calendar year 2006, the member's portion in Tier 3 is 85% of the annual premium. Self-only coverage is $2,964.00 ($247.00 monthly). Self and family coverage is $9,208.92 ($767.41 monthly).

C. Eligibility for qualifying to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage (paragraph I99.24(c)). This paragraph defines the statutory conditions for each of the three tiers within which members of a Reserve component may qualify to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage. The Reserve components of the Armed Forces have the responsibility to determine and validate a member's qualifications to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage and to identify the premium tier for which they qualify.

Section 701 of NDAA-05 established two distinct statutory basis for qualifying to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage under Tier 1. The first statutory basis for Tier 1 established that a member or former member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces who was released from active duty on or before April 26, 2005, qualifies to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier 1 if the member meets all of the following conditions:

(a) Was called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days on or after September 11, 2001 under a provision of law referred to in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13)(B);

(b) Served continuously on active duty for 90 days or more pursuant to such call or order to active duty (unless such continuous service on active duty is less than 90 days solely due to an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated while deployed, as provided in 10 U.S.C. 1076d(b)(2)(A));

(c) Was released from active duty on or before April 26, 2005;

(d) Executed a service agreement with his or her Reserve component prior to purchasing TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, but no later than October 28, 2005, to serve continuously in the Selected Reserve for a period of 1 or more years; and,

(e) Is in a Selected Reserve status on the first day of coverage for TRICARE Reserve Select and maintains continued membership in the Selected Reserve.

This temporary opportunity for Tier 1 (until October 28, 2005) applied to current members of the Selected Reserve, and also to former members who served in support of a contingency after September 11, 2001, who rejoined the Selected Reserve, and who entered into a service agreement for continued service.

In conformance with section 701(b)(2)(B) of the NDAA-05, the Department took steps to notify reservists released from active duty on or before April 26, 2005, who could potentially qualify for TRICARE Reserve Select and provided them information on the opportunity and procedures for entering into a service agreement together with a clear explanation of the benefits that the member is eligible to receive under TRICARE Reserve Select as a result of entering into such service agreement. Specifically, the Department delivered this information to all potentially eligible members (376,800) through a mass mailing conducted from April 22, 2005, to May 12, 2005.

The second statutory basis for Tier 1 established that a member or former member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces who was released from active duty after April 26, 2005, qualifies to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier 1 if the member meets all of the following conditions:

(a) Is called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days on or after September 11, 2001 under a provision of law referred to in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13)(B);

(b) Serves continuously on active duty for 90 days or more in support of a contingency operation on or after September 11, 2001 (unless such continuous service on active duty is less than 90 days solely due to an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated while deployed, as provided in 10 U.S.C. 1076d(b)(2)(A)); and

(c) Is released from active duty after April 26, 2005;

(d) Executed a service agreement with his or her Reserve component to serve continuously in the Selected Reserve for a period of 1 or more years on or before the date of release from active duty if released from active duty before January 6, 2006, or not later than 90 days after release from active duty if released from active duty on or after January 6, 2006, except in the case of a member of the Individual Ready Reserve described in below, with the effective date of the Service agreement coinciding with the 246 TRS coverage begin date

(e) If not already a member of the Selected Reserve, the member shall be in the Selected Reserve on the first day of coverage for TRICARE Reserve Select and shall maintain continued membership in the Selected Reserve. A member of the Individual Ready Reserve released from active duty on or after January 6, 2006, who is unable to find a position in the Selected Reserve and who qualifies TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, except for membership in the Selected Reserve, has one year from the expiration of the member's entitlements to care and benefits following a qualifying period of active duty to execute a service agreement with his or her Reserve component and become a member of the Selected Reserve. A member of the Selected Reserve released from active duty on or after January 6, 2006, who loses his or her position in the Selected Reserve before the end of the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP) shall have one year from the expiration of TAMP period to execute a service agreement with his or her Reserve component and again become a member of the Selected Reserve. This opportunity for Tier I coverage is now permanent under the statute.

The statutory basis for Tier 2 established that a member who is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Services qualifies to purchase TRICARE Reserve. Select coverage in Tier 2 if the member meets all of the following conditions:

(a) Executes a service agreement to serve continuously in the Selected Reserve for a period of time that extends through the period of coverage; and

(b) Maintains continued membership in the Selected Reserve as determined by the member's Reserve component; and

(c) Submits certification in accordance with procedures established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness that is appropriate to substantiate the Reserve component member's assertion that the member is one of the following:

Further, the member shall submit certification appropriate to substantiate the member's assertion of qualifying for Tier 2 in accordance with procedures established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Documentation required to support the certifications includes supplementation covering the full period of qualification. In the event that documentation fails to support qualification or continued qualification or the condition of qualification otherwise ceases to exist and the member fails to report such event to the TRICARE contractor servicing the member's coverage, the member's coverage under Tier 2 will terminate, effective on the date the required condition ceased to exist. In that case, the member may elect coverage in Tier 3 and will be responsible for the additional premiums required for Tier 3, effective from that date.

The statutory basis for Tier 3 established that a member who is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Services qualifies to purchase TRICARE Reserve 248 Select coverage in Tier 3 if the member meets all of the following conditions.

(a) Executes a service agreement to serve continuously in the Selected Reserve for a period of time that extends through the period of coverage;

(b) Maintains continued membership in the Selected Reserve: and

(c) Does not qualify for either Tier 1 or Tier 2.

D. TRICARE Reserve Select enrollment procedures (paragraph 199.24(d)). To purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage, Reserve component members qualified under paragraph 199.24(c) must complete and submit the applicable TRICARE enrollment application, along with an initial payment of the monthly premium share required under paragraph 199.24(b) to the appropriate TRICARE contractor in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA) for receipt not later than 30 days prior to the start of the period of coverage as it has been determined. A member may purchase one of two types of coverage: self-only coverage or self and family coverage.

For qualified members, the decision to purchase TRICARE Reserve Select coverage in Tier I is a one-time opportunity. If not purchased within the prescribed time limit, if coverage is taken for a period less than the maximum period of eligibility, or if coverage is terminated for any reason, coverage may not be initiated or extended later, nor may any period of qualification be saved to be used later.

Members qualified under Tier I based upon qualifying active duty that ended on or before April 26, 2005 are required to submit the required application and premium 249 payment as soon as practicable after entering into a Service Agreement with their respective Reserve component. Members qualified under Tier I based upon qualifying active duty that ended after April 26, 2005 are required to submit the proper application and premium payment for receipt by the appropriate TRICARE contractor not later than 30 days before the last day of qualifying active duty or the last day of coverage under the Transition Assistance Management Program, whichever is later, unless the otherwise qualified member is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve at that time. In that case, the member shall submit the required application and premium payment as soon as practicable after entering into a Service Agreement with his or her respective Reserve component.

Thus, for example, if a member served for one year in support of a contingency operation, the member may purchase Tier I coverage for the next four years if the member agrees to continue service in the Selected Reserve for four years. However, if that member elects to continue service in the Selected Reserve for only two years, the member will qualify for only two years of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage under the Tier 1 premium rate. This two-year coverage period based on the qualifying period of active duty cannot be extended later, even if the member later extends Selected Reserve service for two more years. The only way to extend TRICARE Reserve Select coverage under the Tier 1 premium rate beyond the period determined when the one-time choice is made is by qualifying again through another period of active duty service in support of a contingency operation.

Open Season is the time period during which a member who qualifies for coverage in Tier 2 or Tier 3 may purchase new coverage, renew existing coverage with or without 250 a change in type of coverage, or terminate coverage. One open season will be offered each year in accordance with procedures established by the ASD(HA). A one-time special open season will be offered in 2006 for members to purchase coverage and coverage will be available no later than October 1, 2006. Before a member's coverage may be renewed during open season, the service agreement must be valid through December 31st of the renewed year of coverage and all other qualifications under Tier 2 or Tier 3 must be validated by the member's Reserve component. Actions requested during an open season will take effect January 1st of the year following the open season. Existing Coverage that is not renewed during open season will be terminated no later than December 31st of that year. Upon assignment to the Selected Reserves, members who qualify for coverage under either Tier 2 Or Tier 3 may purchase coverage in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA). Members may request certain changes to their TRICARE Reserve Select Coverage in connection with certain events called qualifying life events in accordance with deadlines and other procedures established by the ASD(HA). The first type of qualifying life event is associated with changes in immediate family composition and it is the responsibility of the member to provide his or her personnel office with the necessary evidence required to substantiate the change in immediate family composition. Personnel will update the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) in the usual manner, which will then notify the appropriate TRICARE contractor who will take appropriate action upon receipt of a proper application. The second type of qualifying life event is associated with changes in family employment or health coverage status.

If a member who is covered under Tier I experiences a qualifying life event, the only action a member may request is a change in type of coverage. The member may request termination of coverage at any time; however, they will not be allowed to purchase coverage again under Tier 1, unless the member qualifies again for Tier 1 coverage after the date of termination for Tier 1 coverage. If a member who is covered under either Tier 2 or Tier 3 experiences a qualifying life event, the member may apply to purchase coverage, request changes in type of coverage, or terminate coverage. Otherwise, a member who is covered under either Tier 2 or Tier 3 may not request to terminate coverage outside of open season.

A member of a Reserve component who qualifies to purchase coverage may elect self-only or self and family coverage. Immediate family members of the Reserve component member, as defined in §§ 199.3(b)(2)(i) (except former spouses) and 199.3(b)(2)(ii) of this part, may be included in such family coverage. After purchasing coverage under Tier 1, members may change type of coverage only in conjunction with a qualifying life event. After purchasing coverage under Tiers 2 and 3, members may change type of coverage either during an open season or in conjunction with a qualifying life event.

The period of coverage for members who qualify under Tier 1 is equal to either the number of whole years covered by the executed service agreement, or to one year in the case of a member who is otherwise eligible but does not serve continuously on active duty for 90 days because of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated while deployed.

The period of coverage for members released from active duty on or before April 26, 2005 begins on the date that is the later of the expiration of TAMP benefits or the 252 effective date of the service agreement, but in no case later than October 28, 2005.

The period of coverage for members released from active duty after April 26, 2005, begins on the first day following the date their TAMP benefits period ends under section 199.3(e) of this part; or the date that a member of the Individual Ready Reserve finds and occupies a position in the Selected Reserve, up to one year after expiration of TAMP benefits. The enrollment in TRICARE Reserve Select must be accomplished within 60 days of assignment to the Selected Reserve. When coverage is terminated or the member is otherwise disenrolled, a member may not purchase coverage in Tier 1 again unless recalled to active duty and the member qualifies again for this tier.

If a member of the Selected Reserves dies while in a period of coverage under Tier 1, the family member(s) may purchase new or continue TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 coverage for up to six months beyond the date of the member's death upon payment of monthly premiums. The premium amount shall be at the member only rate if there is only one surviving family member to be covered by TRICARE Reserve Select and at the member and family rate if there are two or more survivors to be covered.

The maximum duration for any period of coverage purchased by members who qualify for TRICARE Reserve Select under either Tier 2 or Tier 3 is one year and will coincide with the calendar year. The period of coverage begins in accordance with procedures established by the ASD(HA) and ends December 31st of the same year in which the current period of coverage began.

The period of coverage for members who purchase coverage in either Tier 2 or Tier 3 during the annual open season begins January 1st of the year immediately following the open season and ends December 31st of that same year.

The period of coverage for members who purchase coverage in either Tier 2 or Tier 3 as a result of assignment to the Selected Reserve or as a result of a qualifying life event described below begins in accordance with procedures established by the ASD(HA) and ends December 31st of the same year that coverage begins.

Coverage will terminate whenever a member ceases to meet the qualifications for the particular tier under which coverage was purchased or a request for termination is received in accordance with established procedures. However, unless the member's Reserve component terminates the member's service in the Selected Reserve, the service agreement remains in force and the end date is unchanged. Termination of coverage for the member will result in termination of coverage for the member's family members in TRICARE Reserve Select, except for qualified survivors of Reserve component members covered by TRICARE Reserve Select under Tier 1 at the time of death. Failure to make a premium payment in a timely manner will result in termination of coverage for the member and any covered family members and denial of claims for services received after the effective date of termination. Members whose coverage under Tier 1 terminates will not be allowed to purchase coverage again under Tier 1, unless the member qualifies again for Tier 1 coverage after the date of termination. Members whose coverage under any of the three tiers terminates may purchase coverage again under either Tier 2 or Tier 3 if they qualify during the annual open season, or in connection with a qualifying life event.

Effective January 6, 2006, with enactment of section 701 of the NDAA-06, the rules changed with regard to the TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 period of coverage when a member serves on active duty. Before January 6, 2006, when a member covered by TRICARE Reserve Select serves on active duty for a period of more than 30 days and receives other TRICARE coverage, TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is superseded [italics added] for the member and any covered family members, but the period of coverage continues to run. During any period in which TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is superseded, no premium payments for TRICARE Reserve Select are due. If applicable, this other TRICARE coverage includes early TRICARE coverage based on delayed-effective-date orders under § 199.3(b)(5) of this part and TAMP benefits under § 199.3(e) of this part. If the original end date of TRICARE Reserve Select coverage has not been reached by the time the other TRICARE coverage terminates, TRICARE Reserve Select coverage will resume with the same type of coverage in effect on the date coverage was suspended. Coverage will continue until the original end date of coverage or until coverage is otherwise terminated. In addition, TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is also superseded by a new period of coverage established as a result of re-qualifying through another period of active duty service in support of a contingency operation under § 199.24(c) of this part.

On or after January 6, 2006, when a member covered by TRICARE Reserve Select under Tier 1 serves on active duty under orders for a period of more than 30 days and receives other TRICARE coverage, TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 coverage is suspended [italics added] for the member and any covered family members and the period of coverage stops. During any period in which TRICARE Reserve Select coverage is suspended, no premium payments for TRICARE Reserve Select are due. If applicable, this other TRICARE coverage includes early TRICARE coverage based on delayed-effective-date orders under § 199.3(b)(5) of this part and TAMP benefits under § 199.3(e) of this part. The end date of the TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 period of coverage will be extended for a period of time equal to the period of time that TRICARE Reserve Select coverage was suspended. TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 coverage will continue until the adjusted end date, or until coverage is otherwise terminated. In addition, the end date of the TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 period of coverage will be extended for a period of time equal to any new period of coverage established as a result of re-qualifying through another period of active duty service in support of a contingency operation under § 199.24(c) of this part and all other qualifications are met.

E. Relationship to Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP) (paragraph 199.24(e)). This paragraph addresses the relationship between TRICARE Reserve Select and the CHCBP. CHCBP is a program that (among other things) allows members released from active duty to purchase continued health care coverage through TRICARE. Coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select counts as coverage under a health benefit plan for purposes of individuals qualifying for the Continued Health Care Benefits Program (CHCBP) under § 199.20(d)(1)(ii)(B) or § 199.20(d)(1)(iii)(B) of this part. Some members and family members will be eligible for Tier 1 of TRICARE Reserve Select, and may also be eligible for CHCBP at the time of release from active duty.

This paragraph of the regulation provides that if a member purchases TRICARE Reserve Select coverage that is later terminated, the member or the covered family members may then purchase CHCBP coverage for whatever period is remaining of the original 18 month eligibility. For example, in the case that TRICARE Reserve Select Tier 1 coverage that is terminated because of transfer or discharge from the Selected Reserve (such as through a reduction in force or base closure) of a member is within 18 months of release from active duty, the member could choose to continue health care coverage under CHCBP for the remainder of the period at the applicable CHCBP premiums. Eligibility and coverage for TRICARE Reserve Select under either Tier 2 or Tier 3 has no effect on eligibility for the CHCBP.

F. Preemption of State laws (paragraph 199.24(f)). This paragraph explains that the preemptions of State and local laws established for the TRICARE program also apply to TRICARE Reserve Select. Any State or local law or regulation pertaining to health insurance, prepaid health plans, or other health care delivery, administration, and financing methods is preempted and does not apply in connection with TRICARE Reserve Select.

This includes State and local laws imposing premium taxes on health insurance carriers, underwriters or other plan managers, or similar taxes on such entities. Preemption does not apply to taxes, fees, or other payments on net income or profit realized by such entities in the conduct of business relating to DoD health services contracts, if those taxes, fees or other payments are applicable to a broad range of business activity. For the purposes of assessing the effect of Federal preemption of State and local taxes and fees in connection with DoD health services contracts, interpretations shall be consistent with those applicable to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C. 8909(f).

G. Administration (paragraph 199.24(g)). This paragraph provides that the ASD(HA) may establish other rules and procedures necessary for the effective administration of TRICARE Reserve Select.

Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for any significant regulatory action that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts. The Congressional Review Act establishes certain procedures for major rules, defined as those with similar major impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation that would have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This interim final rule is not subject to any of those requirements because it would not have any of these substantial impacts. Any substantial impacts associated with implementation of TRICARE Reserve Select are already determined by statute and are outside any discretionary action of DoD or effect of this regulation.

This rule, however, does address novel policy issues relating to implementation of a new medical benefits program for members of the armed forces. Thus, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

We are in the process of determining whether the interim final rule imposes “collection of information” requirements on the public within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511). If the determination is in the affirmative, we will promptly submit these to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

We have examined the impact(s) of the final rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that would 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, therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM, which would incorporate a comment period before a final rule could be issued and delay the effective date, would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect the public and waters of the United States.

For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . A Coast Guard patrol vessel will be on scene for the duration of the effective period to notify mariners of the restrictions.

These proposed regulations are required to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters because of the inherent danger of fireworks during the Skull Creek July 4th celebration, Skull Creek, Hilton Head, SC.

The temporary safety zone will be enforced in an area extending a radius of 1000 feet around the barge located in Skull Creek, Hilton Head, South Carolina, in approximate position 32°13.95′ N 080°45.1′ W. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 6 p.m. on July 4, 2006 until 12:01 a.m. on July 5, 2006. Marine Traffic will not be permitted to enter the safety zone without permission of the Caption Of the Port Charleston. Any concerned traffic can contact the on-scene designated representative of the Captain of the Port on board the lead U.S. Coast Guard Patrol vessel. Traffic needing permission to pass through the safety zone can contact the representative for the COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 or via phone at (843) 724-7616.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because the regulation will only be in effect for a short duration, the impact on routine navigation is expected to be minimal, marine traffic will still be able to safely transit around the temporary safety zone and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the COTP or designated representative.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The owners and operators of vessels navigating in vicinity of Skull Creek, Hilton Head, S.C., may be impacted by this rule. This impact will not be significant because the regulation will only be in effect for a short duration, the impact on routine navigation is expected to be minimal, marine traffic will still be able to safely transit around the temporary safety zone and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the COTP or designated representative.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM, which would incorporate a comment period before a final rule could be issued and delay the effective date, would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect the public and waters of the United States.

For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . A Coast Guard patrol vessel will be on scene for the duration of the effective period to notify mariners of the restrictions.

These proposed regulations are required to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters because of the inherent danger from fireworks during the July 4th celebration on the upper Cooper River, North Charleston, SC.

The temporary safety zone will be in effect and enforced in an area extending 1000 feet in all directions from a barge located on the Upper Cooper River, North Charleston, SC in approximate position 32°51′57″ N 079°57′35″ W. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 6 p.m. on July 4, 2006 through 12:01 a.m. on July 5, 2006. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, anchoring, mooring or transiting within the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Charleston or his designated representative. Any concerned traffic may request permission to pass through the safety zone from the COTP or designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or via phone at (843) 724-7616.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because the regulation will only be in effect for a short duration, the impact on routine navigation is expected to be minimal, marine traffic will still be able to safely transit around the temporary safety zone and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the COTP or designated representative.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The owners and operators of vessels navigating in vicinity of the Upper Cooper River may be impacted by this rule. This impact will not be significant because the regulation will only be in effect for a short duration, the impact on routine navigation is expected to be minimal, marine traffic will still be able to safely transit around the temporary safety zone and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the COTP or designated representative.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a joint program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural preference in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution and, therefore, negated State compliance with ANILCA.

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. The Departments administer Title VIII through regulations at Title 50, Part 100 and Title 36, Part 242 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition includes a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for Subparts A, B, and C, which establish the program structure and determine which Alaska residents are eligible to take specific species for subsistence uses, and the annual Subpart D regulations, which establish seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means for subsistence take of species in specific areas. Subpart D regulations for the 2006 fishing seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means were published on March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15569). Because this action relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical closures and adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), under the direction of the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), manages sport, commercial, personal use, and State subsistence harvest on all lands and waters throughout Alaska. However, on Federal lands and waters, the Federal Subsistence Board implements a subsistence priority for rural residents as provided by Title VIII of ANILCA. In providing this priority, the Board may, when necessary, preempt State harvest regulations for fish or wildlife on Federal lands and waters.

These actions are authorized and in accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(d-e) and 36 CFR 242.19(d-e).

In December 2001, the Board adopted regulatory proposals establishing a new Federal subsistence fishery in the Chitina Subdistrict of the Copper River. This fishery is open to federally qualified users having customary and traditional use of salmon in this Subdistrict. The State conducts a personal use fishery in this Subdistrict that is open to all Alaska residents.

Management of the fishery is based on the numbers of salmon returning to the Copper River. A larger than predicted salmon run will allow additional fishing time. A smaller than predicted run will require restrictions to achieve upriver passage and spawning escapement goals. A run that approximates the pre-season forecast will allow fishing to proceed on a schedule similar to the pre-season schedule, with some adjustments made to fishing time based on in-season data. Adjustments to the preseason schedule are expected as a normal function of an abundance-based management strategy. State and Federal managers, reviewing and discussing all available in-season information, will make these adjustments.

While Federal and State regulations currently differ for this Subdistrict, the Board indicated that Federal in-season management actions regarding fishing periods were expected to mirror State actions. The State established a preseason schedule of allowable fishing periods based on daily projected sonar estimates. The preseason schedule was intended to distribute the harvest throughout the salmon run and provide salmon for upriver subsistence fisheries and the spawning escapement. Data regarding the salmon return to the Copper River is now available from estimates made by the Miles Lake sonar. Data from the sonar indicate that by June 9, 2006, there will be sufficient salmon in the Copper River to allow fishing time in the Chitina Subdistrict, provide for the needs of upper Copper River users, and achieve spawning escapement objectives. The Board, acting through the in-season manager, has delayed the opening of this fishery until June 9, 2006. Late breakup conditions delayed salmon migration into the Copper River by approximately 2 weeks. Shown below are the fishing schedule openings for the Chitina Subdistrict of the Copper River:

State personal use and Federal subsistence fisheries in this Subdistrict close simultaneously by regulation on September 30, 2006. No deviation from this date is anticipated.

The Federal Steelhead Subsistence management plan for Cable Creek requires that in-season action be taken when the total harvest reaches 5 or more steelhead. It is estimated that steelhead harvest from Cable Creek is greater than 11 fish. Immediate action was necessary to restrict federally and non-federally qualified users in the Cable Creek drainage for conservation of the steelhead resource. The Board, acting through the in-season manager, has closed all waters of Cable Creek to fishing from 12:01 a.m., Thursday, April 13, 2006 through 11:59 p.m., May 31, 2006. Concurrent action was being taken by ADF&G to close fishing on this stream to all users.

The Board finds that additional public notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for these adjustments are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Lack of appropriate and immediate conservation measures could seriously affect the continued viability of fish populations, could adversely impact future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive additional public notice and comment procedures prior to implementation of these actions and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective as indicated in the DATES section.

A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992, and a Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska (ROD) was signed April 6, 1992. The final rule for Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940, published May 29, 1992), implemented the Federal Subsistence Management Program and included a framework for an annual cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. A final rule that redefined the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program to include waters subject to the subsistence priority was published on January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276.)

The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD, which concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting hunting and fishing regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but the program is not likely to significantly restrict subsistence uses.

The adjustment and emergency closures do not contain information collection requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The adjustments have been exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. The exact number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate effect is an insignificant economic effect (both positive and negative) on a small number of small entities supporting subsistence activities, such as boat, fishing gear, and gasoline dealers. The number of small entities affected is unknown; however, the effects will be seasonally and geographically limited in nature and will likely not be significant. The Departments certify that the adjustments will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), this rule is not a major rule. It does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, the adjustments have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.

The Service has determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq. , that the adjustments will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. The implementation is by Federal agencies, and no cost is involved to any State or local entities or tribal governments.

The Service has determined that the adjustments meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on federal lands. Cooperative salmon run assessment efforts with ADF&G will continue.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this rulemaking.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As these actions are not expected to significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use, they are not significant energy actions and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Bill Knauer drafted this document under the guidance of Peter J. Probasco, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Stacie Mcintosh, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Jerry Berg, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Nancy Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Steve Kessler, USDA—Forest Service, provided additional guidance.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you submit applications or other pesticide related information to OPP. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• 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 accessing an electronic copy of this Federal Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR parts 150, 152, 154, 158, 159, 168, 170, 172, 174, 178, and 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr .

OPP has relocated to new offices in Arlington, VA. This move was announced in the Federal Register of April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20089) (FRL-8065-6). Detailed information on how to contact OPP at the new location was recently provided to the public in Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2006-1 (April 12, 2006). PR Notice 2006-1 contains the mail codes which are to be used with submissions to OPP and is available on the Agency's website at http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2006-1.pdf .

The Agency is now amending its pesticide regulations in parts 150-189 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to change the manner in which the addresses are referenced. Currently, there are over 20 references in 40 CFR parts 150-189 to either an address or docket location. Rather than maintain and have to update multiple address references, the Agency is creating a new § 150.17 to contain the U.S. Postal Service mailing address, the address for hand/courier delivery, and the location of the OPP Regulatory Public Docket. This means that individual addresses scattered throughout the CFR are being replaced by a reference to § 150.17.

EPA is issuing this document under its general rulemaking authority, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App.).

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), provides that an agency may issue rules of agency organization, procedure, and practice without first giving notice. This address change regulation qualifies as a rule of organization, procedure, or practice.

Additionally, section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the actions taken in this final rule represent technical amendments to the regulations and do not involve substantive Agency action. Moreover, maintaining incorrect information on how to submit documents to the Agency may have legal consequences, and may increase costs to the regulated industry.

For these reasons, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter E, to reflect the new OPP address. It does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a technical amendment is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, 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). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to 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 note).

Since this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute, this action is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .). In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The Agency has determined that this rule does not have any substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13132 and 13175 do not apply to this rule.

Yes. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq .) 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 of CRA 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. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (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 date of June 21, 2006. 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Previously, on October 21, 2003, the EPA proposed an extension of the original expiration date of the Labs XL Project. EPA received no negative public comments in response to the proposal, and published a final rule on March 12, 2004. EPA is again extending the expiration date, this time as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, because the Agency views the extension as non-controversial and anticipates no adverse comments.

Unless the EPA gets written comments which oppose this action during the comment period, the decision will take effect as provided below. If EPA gets comments that oppose this action, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will then address the public comments in a later final rule, but may not provide any further opportunity for comment beyond what is being provided for in this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so during the comment period being provided for in this action.

As indicated above, EPA is extending the expiration date of September 30, 2006 set forth in 40 CFR 262.108 of the Labs XL Project regulations until April 15, 2009. The original rule implementing the Labs XL Project took effect on September 28, 1999 and allowed four years for the colleges to demonstrate the beneficial aspects of the new management system expiring on September 30, 2003. See 40 CFR 262.108. EPA later determined that an extension was appropriate, and published a Federal Register on October 21, 2003 (68 FR 60060) proposing a three-year extension (until September 30, 2006) of the Labs XL Project regulations. EPA received no negative public comments in response to the proposal, and finalized the extension on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11801). In the meantime, EPA has been developing a national set of alternative regulations for academic laboratories that are similar to the Labs XL Project regulations. However, since these alternative regulations for academic laboratories will not be in place prior to the expiration of the current September 30, 2006 Labs XL Project regulations, if the Labs XL Project was not extended, there would be a period of time in which labs participating in the Labs XL Project would have to terminate their participation in the program and would not be able to benefit from alternative generator regulations, either under the Labs XL Project (since this would have expired) or under the National Labs Rule that EPA is developing (since this would not have been finalized). For this reason, EPA has decided to extend the expiration date of the Labs XL Project to allow time for a national set of alternative regulations to be promulgated and for equivalent regulations to be adopted by the States. EPA is proposing an extension of approximately two and a half years because the Agency believes that this would be a reasonable period of time for EPA to promulgate its National Labs Rule, and for the States to adopt equivalent regulations. Of course, nothing in this rule pre-judges what general Federal and State regulations ultimately will be adopted—rather, it simply gives an opportunity for alternative general regulations to be adopted before the expiration of the Labs XL Project.

Also, EPA Region I recently has done an analysis of the Labs XL Project, which is available in the Docket. Based on this analysis, and other oversight of the project, the EPA believes that the continuation of the project should provide a superior level of environmental protection in comparison to an immediate return by the three covered institutions to standard RCRA regulation.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views it as a non-controversial action. The Agency anticipates no adverse comments, since none were received during the previous comment period to extend the original expiration date. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate, parallel document that will serve as a proposal to extend the current expiration date if the Agency receives adverse comments.

EPA announced Project XL—“eXcellence and Leadership” in May 1995 as a part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated entities an opportunity to develop pilot projects to provide regulatory flexibility that would result in environmental protection that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current standard regulations and reasonably anticipated future regulations.

One of the projects that EPA approved under Project XL was the Labs XL project. This project was intended to provide certain flexibility under RCRA for: (1) The University of Massachusetts—Boston, Boston, MA; (2) Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA; and (3) the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT (the “participating universities”). On September 28, 1999, EPA, the participating universities, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation signed the Final Project Agreement for the project. That agreement and the related specially adopted Federal and State regulations allow the participating universities to comply with the terms of their Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for their laboratories in place of certain standard requirements for hazardous waste generators, during a trial period. In order to allow this experiment, the EPA promulgated certain regulations in 1999 which are set forth in 40 CFR 262.10(j) and 40 CFR 262.100—108. See 64 FR 52380 (September 28, 1999) (final rulemaking) and 64 FR 40696 (July 27, 1999) (proposed rulemaking). The reasons for promulgating these particular EPA regulations are fully set forth in those previous rulemaking notices and will not be repeated here. These EPA regulations were designed to enable the EPA to authorize as part of a State's RCRA authorized program State regulations that were different from the standard EPA regulations, in order to implement the Labs XL project.

After EPA promulgated its Labs XL Project regulations, both Massachusetts and Vermont promulgated their own state regulations establishing equivalent alternative standards for laboratories at the participating universities. The Vermont regulations were authorized by the EPA and became part of the federally enforceable Vermont RCRA program on October 26, 2000. See 65 FR 64164. The Massachusetts regulations were authorized by the EPA and became part of the federally enforceable Massachusetts RCRA program on March 12, 2004. See 69 FR 11801.

The Federal regulation change in this direct final rule is to extend the expiration date in 40 CFR 262.108 from September 30, 2006 to April 15, 2009. EPA is making no further changes to the Labs XL Project regulations. The regulation change is set out at the end of this document.

The EPA has examined the effects of the change to the Federal regulations and reached the conclusions set out below.

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 effect 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 entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof;

(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.

Because the annualized cost of these actions will be significantly less than $100 million and because these actions will not meet any of the other criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , Federal agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information request contained in a proposed rule or final rule. The Labs XL Project applies to only three universities, and any reporting obligations for nine or fewer sources are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, no information collection request (ICR) was submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or 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.

In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact, since the primary purpose of any regulatory flexibility analysis would be to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The Labs XL Project applies to only three universities. Also, the rule increases flexibility—thus relieving the regulatory burden. Accordingly, the EPA hereby certifies that this action 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. ). Thus a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required to be prepared under that Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 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 one year. Before promulgating a EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopts 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 the 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. In addition, before the 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 about the regulatory requirements, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that the section 202 and 205 requirements do not apply to this action because the rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector. Costs to State, local or tribal governments and the private sector already exist under the State program, and the actions will not impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. Thus the requirements of section 203 that the EPA develop a small government agency plan will not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the 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 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. This rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. 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 6, 2000), requires the 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.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and the Indian tribes.”

The actions will not have tribal implications, as defined by the Executive Order, because they will have no direct effect in Indian Country. None of the three universities participating in the XL project are located in Indian Country; therefore, this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” 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 the 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, it does not concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because that Executive Order applies only to rules that are “significant” under Executive Order 12866, and this rule is not a significant regulatory action 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 note) directs the 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 standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rule does not involve technical standards covered by voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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. EPA is submitting a report containing this document 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 in the Federal Register . In addition, 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 in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, it nevertheless will take effect in 60 days in accordance with the procedures applicable to direct final rules.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, ET Docket No. 02-305, FCC 06-62, adopted May 3, 2006 and released May 8, 2006. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.

1. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denies a Petition for Partial Reconsideration (Petition) filed by AirTV Limited (AirTV) in response to the Commission's S-Band Allocation Order, which, inter alia, deleted the unused Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) allocation from the band 2500- 2690 MHz and removed a related footnote from the Table of Frequency Allocations (Table). We continue to believe that the decision in the S-Band Allocation Order is necessary to prevent terrestrial licensees in the band 2500-2690 MHz from incurring the costs of mitigating the interference expected from BSS systems, such as the one proposed by AirTV.

2. On January 22, 2004, AirTV filed its Petition seeking reinstatement of the BSS allocation in the band 2520-2670 MHz and expansion of the BSS allocation in that band through deletion of footnote NG101. On February 9, 2004, we released a public notice seeking comment on AirTV's Petition, 69 FR 7484 February 17, 2004. The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA) filed an opposition (Opposition) to AirTV's Petition on March 3, 2004. In addition, both AirTV and WCA submitted additional pleadings in the record.

3. Pursuant to § 1.429(a) of the Commission's rules, any interested party may petition for reconsideration of a final action in a Commission proceeding. Section 1.429(b) states that a petition for reconsideration which relies on facts which have not previously been presented to the Commission will be granted only if (1) the facts relied on relate to events which have changed since the last opportunity to present them to the Commission; (2) the facts relied on were unknown to the petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the Commission, and he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence have learned of the facts in question prior to such an opportunity; or (3) the Commission determines that consideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest.

4. We first reject AirTV's apparent position that it bore no responsibility for demonstrating in the record that BSS systems, such as its proposed Direct-to-Aircraft (DTA) system, would not cause interference to terrestrial systems. We distinguish between a burden of proof, which AirTV mistakenly believes that we imposed upon it in the S-Band Allocation Order, and the burden of persuasion that is an integral part of any rulemaking proceeding. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (“NPRM”), the Commission sought comment on the proposed deletion of an unused BSS allocation, and the record that was subsequently developed included pleadings setting forth reasons why we should adopt or reject the proposal. Because the Commission must make a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and provide a reasoned analysis to support its determination—and because in this case the comments contained conflicting stances—any interested party had a responsibility to weigh in with substantive and persuasive arguments in order to support its position. Thus, it was incumbent upon AirTV to offer substantive and persuasive comments that could counter both our tentative conclusion and other parties' pleadings that supported the proposed deletion of the allocation. In addition, however, we also now agree with WCA that AirTV's suggestion in its comments that the Commission should retain the BSS allocation, but without footnote NG101, was an inappropriate filing and amounts to the equivalent of a waiver request or a petition for further rulemaking. As such, it was incumbent on AirTV to show that its proposed DTA system would not interfere with terrestrial systems.

5. In the S-Band Allocation Order, the Commission made the determination that deleting the BSS/Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) allocation would serve the public interest by preventing the potential disruption of Educational Broadband Service (EBS) and Broadband Radio Service (BRS) across the country, as well as by avoiding imposing high costs on terrestrial licensees to mitigate harmful interference from BSS and FSS services to terrestrial services. A review of the record on reconsideration gives us no reason to alter our conclusion. We do not find persuasive AirTV's argument that we should overturn our decision on the grounds that its proposed system would not produce “unacceptable interference” to terrestrial systems because it would operate with power flux density (PFD) levels 10 dB below the PFD levels specified in International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Table 21-4. As the final product of a consultative process that involved input from a variety of working groups, ITU Table 21-4 sets forth maximum PFD levels at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a satellite that are intended to promote sharing between BSS and terrestrial services in the band 2500-2690 MHz. We note, however, that other parties that have studied the potential for BSS interference to terrestrial systems in the band have discussed the possible interference mitigation measures that may be necessary with shared operations in the band. For example, in a liaison statement from ITU-R Study Groups Working Party (WP) 6S to WP 8F that AirTV did not cite, WP 6S indicates that all BSS systems, even if operated at PFD levels 10 dB below the levels specified in ITU Table 21-4 as AirTV proposed, will reduce the coverage area of terrestrial systems in the band 2630-2655 MHz. Similarly, the United Kingdom, within the framework of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations Electronic Communications Committee Project Team 1 (CEPT ECC/PT1), found that BSS systems, even if operated at the lower PFD levels proposed by AirTV, will result in reduced coverage area for terrestrial systems using the band 2630-2655 MHz. Even one of the Draft Recommendations cited by AirTV in support of its Petition expressly assumes that terrestrial stations will be employing mitigation techniques to counteract BSS systems' interference. All these studies predict the additional interference mitigation costs for terrestrial systems subjected to BSS interference would include, for example, the need to install additional base stations in order to restore any lost coverage area. Furthermore, because the studies by WP 6S and the United Kingdom only consider BSS systems' interference potential to IMT-2000 terrestrial systems, the potential impact to existing BRS and EBS systems in the United States is actually greater than the impact predicted in those studies. This is due to the fact that existing BRS and EBS systems use receiving antennas with higher gain than the receiving antennas typically employed in IMT-2000 systems.

6. A closer examination of AirTV's proposed system gives us additional reason to conclude that it would impose interference mitigation burdens on incumbent terrestrial service operators. When we compare the interference-to-noise (I/N) ratios AirTV purports its system would produce with the ratios reported in the WP 6S and United Kingdom studies, we find that AirTV's I/N ratios closely approximate the I/N ratios that the WP 6S and the United Kingdom materials indicate will result in reduced coverage area and increased interference mitigation costs for terrestrial systems. Furthermore, the interference study that accompanied AirTV's Petition does not evaluate the interference potential of its proposed satellites at 55° West Longitude and 96° West Longitude, and does not compute the I/N ratios for elevation angles below 20° for its proposed satellite at 86° West Longitude, where the interference potential from AirTV's proposed system to terrestrial systems is greatest. Satellite signals received at elevation angles below 20° have the greatest potential to cause harmful interference to terrestrial systems because the gain of the receiving antennas in these terrestrial systems increases as the elevation angle decreases below this angle. In this regard, the potential for interference from AirTV's system is most prevalent where AirTV's satellite signals would be received by terrestrial systems' receiving antennas at elevation angles less than 20°, as WCA asserts, in Alaska and Hawaii, but also in portions of the Continental United States, including locations in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. An evaluation of the interference potential of AirTV's proposed system at elevation angles less than 20° shows that it would produce I/N ratios that exceed −6dB, which all parties have indicated will affect terrestrial operations in the band.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we continue to believe that the Commission properly and rationally concluded that BSS systems will affect the coverage area and introduce potential interference mitigation costs for terrestrial systems. Although AirTV may plan to operate a system that generates PFD levels “significantly below” the maximum levels in Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations, that in itself does not mean that such operations will not have a significant effect on terrestrial users in the band. While Table 21-4 and the studies we discuss, above, set forth ways in which the band may be shared, it is a different matter to conclude that such shared use best serves the public interest here. In balancing the effect of such burdens on terrestrial licensees against the currently unused BSS allocation, the prospect of interference to terrestrial licensees that would affect their planning and deployment of systems weighs strongly against reinstating the unused BSS allocation. Accordingly, we continue to believe that it best serves the public interest to remove the allocation.

8. Because we have determined that BSS systems will impose interference mitigation costs that we find unacceptable for terrestrial systems, we also reject AirTV's suggestion that the Commission could consider individual BSS applications on a case-by-case basis as impractical. This is especially relevant in light of the Commission's decisions to reband and add a mobile allocation to the band 2500-2690 MHz that are anticipated to promote increased mobile use in these frequencies. Our restructuring of the band, with the enhanced flexibility targeted to facilitate new mobile and wireless broadband applications, is likely to make it more, rather than less, difficult to avoid interference from BSS systems to terrestrial systems. Moreover, based on our evaluation of AirTV's proposed system, we conclude that a BSS system will have minimal likelihood of success in overcoming these interference challenges. Were we to implement AirTV's suggestion to examine specific BSS system proposals on a case-by-case basis and address the appropriate terrestrial mitigation remedy for the interference such BSS systems would be expected to cause to terrestrial systems, we would introduce complexity, uncertainty, and the likelihood of increased costs for terrestrial operators in the band 2500-2690 MHz to build their systems with capabilities for mitigating possible interference from BSS operations. In exchange, we would introduce the prospect that, under certain circumstances that would have not been clearly demonstrated as of yet, it might be possible, at some point in the future, to deploy a BSS operation in the band that would not impose unacceptable interference mitigation costs on existing terrestrial systems.

9. We also find AirTV's other arguments unpersuasive. We reject the argument that, in order to delete the unused BSS allocation, we need an affirmative showing from terrestrial licensees in the band that the BSS cannot coexist with existing terrestrial services. Our election in the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) proceeding to require such an analysis does not mandate such an analysis every time we consider adding a new service. In addition, this is a case in which the Commission deleted, rather than added, a service allocation from a frequency band. Furthermore, the respective services contemplated by the parties would both involve ubiquitous mobile receivers. Given the challenges inherent in arranging compatible uses of such receivers, we see no point in requiring or reviewing further technical studies. The sharing scenario proposed is, in this case, not practicable. Consequently, we see no purpose in maintaining an allocation for BSS when we are not in a position to adequately protect BSS earth stations from interference.

10. AirTV also contends for the first time, at this late date, that § 7 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires parties that oppose the introduction of a new service in the band (and thus support the Commission's deletion of the BSS allocation in the band 2500-2690 MHz) to demonstrate that the BSS was inconsistent with the public interest. As an initial matter, we note that that portion of the Act has been characterized as a broad policy statement reflecting congressional delegation on policy matters to the Commission's discretion. Furthermore, even if section 7 should be read to apply to the instant situation involving the deletion of an unused allocation, we nevertheless find that our decision is consistent with the provision's intent. Specifically, because we think that the BRS/EBS band, as recently restructured, holds great potential for the development of new services and technologies, it was consistent with the public interest for us to remove an allocation for a service (in this case, the BSS) that was not presently being offered and that, if deployed, could impose limitations on the rapid and robust deployment of new BRS and EBS technologies. Thus, our decision serves to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public, in furtherance of section 7's broad and general policies.

11. We maintain our conclusion that deletion of the BSS allocation was not violative of international requirements, notwithstanding AirTV's arguments to the contrary. We note that the U.S. Schedule of Specific Commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement includes an exemption from most-favored-nation obligations for the Direct-to-Home Fixed-Satellite Service (DTH-FSS), Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service, and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS). Under this exemption, the U.S. is not required to extend most-favored-nation treatment for these satellite services in evaluating coordination requests from foreign administrations for applications to transmit into the territory of the U.S. by non-U.S. satellite systems. In addition, nothing in the U.S. Schedule of Specific Commitments or in the Commission's decision implementing the WTO decision, however, limits the exempted satellite services to a specific frequency band, in particular the DBS frequency band. For this reason, the exemption applies to all signals transmitted or retransmitted by satellites that are intended for direct reception by the general public. Thus, we reject AirTV's assertion that, because BSS systems at 2500-2690 MHz are not part of the Commission's definition of DBS services in § 25.201, the Commission's deletion of the BSS allocation from the band 2500-2690 MHz was precluded by the commitments the U.S. has under the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In addition, as we previously determined, under the WTO's GATS, the U.S. may also limit new satellite authorizations when incumbent operations face potential interference. Furthermore, we agree with WCA's assertion that the Commission's decision to delete the BSS allocation does not discriminate against foreign licensees, because the decision affects both domestic and foreign systems in a non-discriminatory fashion. This conforms to the WTO's GATS non-discrimination policies.

12. Having reexamined our allocation decision, we remain convinced that it was properly decided based on interference mitigation concerns. We continue to believe, that simultaneous operation of BSS and terrestrial systems at 2520-2670 MHz would require parties to address matters of technical compatibility in order to make use of the band. Thus, we continue to find that the public interest is served by our deletion of the unused BSS allocation, and that our decision will prevent terrestrial licensees from incurring the costs of evaluating and mitigating the interference that any proposed BSS deployment—including the AirTV system examined herein—would be expected to cause to terrestrial systems.

13. A Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis or certification, see generally 5 U.S.C 604-605, is not required because this order does not promulgate or revise any rules.

14. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 405, and § 1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by AirTV Limited, is denied.

This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 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). This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 06-1043, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 03-123, DA 06-1043, adopted May 16, 2006, released May 16, 2006, addressing issues raised in Telco Group's Petition for Declaratory Ruling, or in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver ( Petition ), filed July 26, 2004.

The full text of document DA 06-1043 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 06-1043 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 1-800-378-3160.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 06-1043 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

Title IV of the ADA directs the Commission to ensure that interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to individuals with hearing and speech disabilities in the United States. See generally Public Law 101-336, 104 Statute 327, 366-69 (July 26, 1990), codified at 47 U.S.C. 225; see also 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). Section 225 of the Communications Act, requires the Commission to establish regulations to ensure the quality of relay service. 47 U.S.C. 225(b). The Commission initially implemented this mandate in three orders.

In TRS I , the Commission adopted rules identifying the relay services that carriers offering voice telephone transmission services must provide to persons with hearing and speech disabilities and the TRS mandatory minimum standards that govern the provision of service. See Telecommunications Relay Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (July 26, 1991) ( TRS I ), published at 56 FR 36729, August 1, 1991; see 47 CFR 64.604 of the Commission's rules (the TRS “mandatory minimum standards”). In TRS II , the Commission adopted a shared funding mechanism for interstate TRS cost recovery, spreading the cost of providing TRS to all subscribers of every interstate service. See Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , CC Docket No. 90-571, Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 1802, 1805-1806, at paragraphs 19-27 (February 25, 1993) ( TRS II ), published at 58 FR 12204, March 3, 1993 and 58 FR 12175, March 3, 1993. Under section 225(d)(3) of the Communication's Act, the Commission's regulations governing the jurisdictional separation of costs shall generally provide that the costs caused by interstate TRS shall be recovered from all subscribers to every interstate service, and the costs caused by intrastate TRS shall be recovered by the states. 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3). The Commission also proposed that under this mechanism a charge would be assessed on all common carriers that offer interstate telecommunications services to create the Interstate TRS Fund, and that the providers would be compensated from the Fund for providing TRS based on a national average TRS interstate minute of use rate. TRS II , 8 FCC Rcd at 1806, paragraphs 23-26. In TRS III , the Commission established the Interstate TRS Fund, currently administered by the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), to reimburse TRS providers for the costs of providing interstate TRS. See Telecommunications Services, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300 (July 20, 1993) ( TRS III ), published at 58 FR 39671, July 26, 1993. That order also finalized the contribution methodology for payments into the Fund and defined the interstate services subject to the contribution assessment. The Commission adopted a regulation providing that “[c]ontributions shall be made by all carriers who provide interstate services, including, but not limited to * * * international * * * services.” 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules; see also TRS III , 8 FCC Rcd at 5306, paragraph 33 (ordering clause adopting rule amendments set forth in Appendix B); Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Recommended TRS Cost Recovery Guidelines , CC Docket No. 98-67, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 22948, 22949-22950, paragraph 2 (December 21, 2001), published at 67 FR 4203, January 29, 2002 and 67 FR 4227, January 29, 2002 (noting that TRS III required “that every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of * * * interstate and international revenues”).

In its Petition , Telco Group requests that the Commission exclude international revenues from the revenue base used to calculate payments due to the Interstate TRS Fund, “at least for those carriers whose international revenues comprise a significant portion of their total interstate and international revenues,” or in the alternative, find good cause to waive Telco Group's obligations to the Fund that are based on its international revenues. Petition at 1.

Telco Group maintains that such relief is warranted because, in what Telco Group argues is an analogous case involving the Universal Service Fund (USF), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit required the Commission to revisit the USF assessment on the international services revenue of a provider of primarily international services and de minimis interstate services. Petition at 3 (citing Texas Office of the Public Utility Counsel v. FCC , 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) ( TOPUC )). The Court found that requiring a carrier to pay an assessment on its international services revenue that exceeded the carrier's total interstate revenue violated the equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution requirement of the Universal Service statute, section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. TOPUC , 183 F.3d at 434-435; see 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(4). Although the Interstate TRS Fund is governed by section 225 of the Communications Act, rather than section 254 of the Communications Act, Telco Group argues that the Interstate TRS Fund contribution rules also are “designed to be equitable and nondiscriminatory” and, therefore, the relief afforded in TOPUC should be extended to TRS. Petition at 4. Telco Group argues that its circumstance is comparable to the TOPUC plaintiff because the “vast majority” of Telco Group's revenues—approximately 96 percent—are derived from international services. Moreover, Telco Group argues the public interest will be served by granting the requested relief because it will ensure Telco Group “remains as a viable competitor in the market for interstate services.” Petition at 9. Telco Group adds that the “high payment obligations also hinder Telco Group's ability to compete outside the United States, and so contradict the Commission's efforts to promote and encourage competition in the international and interstate markets.” Petition at 9-10 (citing 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review — Policies and Procedures Concerning the International, Interexchange Marketplace , IB Docket No. 02-202, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 10647 (March 20, 2001)), published at 66 FR 16874, March 28, 2001.

On October 25, 2004, the Telco Group Petition was place on Public Notice. Telco Group, Inc. Files Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Waiver to Exclude International Revenues from the Revenue Base Used to Calculate Payment to the Interstate TRS Fund , CC Docket No. 98-67, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 20965 (October 25, 2004), published at 69 FR 64573, November 5, 2004. Two oppositions were filed, one from a carrier and one from an organization representing the deaf community. Comments were filed by MCI (MCI) (November 26, 2004) and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) (November 24, 2004). Late filed comments were filed by Globecomm Systems, Inc. (“GSI”) on February 14, 2006. On that same date, GSI also filed a petition for declaratory ruling that there is no obligation to pay into the Interstate TRS Fund based on revenues arising from traffic that does not originate or terminate in the United States. Globecomm Systems, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling (filed February 14, 2006). Because the issue in the GSI petition—whether certain calls should be considered international calls—is distinct from the issue raised in Telco Group's Petition , the Commission will address GSI's petition in a separate order. Telco Group did not file any reply comments.

Telco Group's Petition is premised on the congruence between section 254 of the Communications Act, which establishes Universal Service requirements, and section 225 of the Communications Act, which establishes requirements for the provision of TRS. Sections 254 and 225 of the Communications Act, however, differ in fundamental and, in this case, dispositive ways. Unlike USF assessments, contributions to the Interstate TRS Fund are used, in part, to reimburse international relay calls. Therefore, in this case, the public interest lies in ensuring adequate funding for interstate TRS—including international TRS—by assessing contributions on as broad a revenue base as can be justified. Accordingly, Telco Group's request that the Commission exclude international revenues from the end-user revenue base used to calculate payments due to the Interstate TRS Fund is denied. Because Telco Group has not demonstrated why individualized relief is appropriate, the company's request for waiver of the interstate TRS assessment on international services revenue is also denied.

Unlike the Universal Service Fund, which does not directly support international services but only may be used only to support domestic services, the Interstate TRS Fund is used to support international TRS. TRS I Order , 6 FCC Rcd at 4660-4661, paragraph 18 (discussing comments that relay services should relay international calls that originate or terminate in the United States provided that equipment of the foreign country is compatible with U.S. equipment); TRS III Order , 8 FCC Rcd at 5301, paragraph 9, note14 (in adopting rule requiring contributions to the Fund to be based on, inter alia, international services, Commission notes Sprint's argument “that international services should be included because TRS providers will be compensated by the administrator for international TRS minutes of use”). IP Relay service is an exception to this rule. See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12224, 12242, at paragraph 48, note, 121 (June 30, 2004) (noting that the Fund “does not currently reimburse providers for the costs of providing international calls via IP Relay”); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 12823, 12837, at paragraph 42 (June 30, 2003) (noting that in March 2003 NECA was directed to suspend payment to TRS providers for international IP Relay service minutes); see also 2004 TRS Report and Order , 19 FCC Rcd at 12525, paragraph 129, published at 69 FR 53346, September 1, 2004 and 69 FR 53382, September 1, 2004 (noting that although Fund does not pay for international IP Relay service calls, it does pay for international Video Relay Service calls). Therefore, unlike the USF assessments at issue in TOPUC, excluding international revenues from the revenue base used for calculating TRS contributions would not serve the public interest. With the TRS Fund, it is not the case—as in TOPUC —that a provider of only de minimis interstate service may be required to bear a disproportionately heavy burden in subsidizing the provision of such services by other carriers. Contributions to the Interstate TRS Fund based on Telco Group's international services revenue can, in turn, be used to subsidize international TRS. Moreover, Telco Group is required to contribute the same percentage of its interstate and international revenues to the Interstate TRS Fund as other carriers that provide both interstate and international services. This approach is both equitable and nondiscriminatory. Opposition of MCI at 3. As MCI notes, “it would be discriminatory if Telco Group, and other internationally-oriented carriers, were allowed to exclude international revenues from the TRS contribution base. Companies such as MCI, who also earn international revenues by providing international prepaid calling services, as well as other international services, would be required to compete against companies who would have been granted a discriminatory cost advantage were the Commission to grant Telco Group's request.”

Moreover, TOPUC is specifically based on the equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution requirement of section 254 of the Communications Act. Section 254 of the Communications Act states that “[a]ll providers of telecommunications services should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service.” 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(4). The Court found that requiring COMSAT, a satellite provider of primarily international services along with de minimis interstate service offerings, to contribute to the Universal Service Fund based on its international services revenues was inequitable and discriminatory given that COMSAT's contribution based on international services revenue would exceed the company's total interstate revenues. The Court stated that “the agency's interpretation of ‘equitable and nondiscriminatory,’ allowing it to impose prohibitive costs on carriers such as COMSAT, is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ * * * [because] COMSAT and carriers like it will contribute more in universal service payments than they will generate from interstate service.” TOPUC, 183 F.3d at 434-435. Section 225 of the Communications Act, however, contains no such express requirement. In the absence of such language, and particularly because international services are supported by the Interstate TRS Fund, the Commission is not bound by the TOPUC decision to reduce or eliminate Interstate TRS Fund assessments on international services for Telco Group or similarly situated providers. With respect to contributions, the only limiting language of section 225 of the Communications Act is jurisdictional in nature. See 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(3) (addressing jurisdictional separation of costs). Accordingly, Telco Group's request for a declaratory ruling excluding international services revenue from the interstate contribution base is denied.

Telco Group's request for waiver of the interstate TRS assessment on its international services revenue is also denied. Although the Commission may waive a provision of its rules for “good cause shown,” 47 CFR 1.3 of the Commission's rules; see generally 2004 TRS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12520, paragraph 110 (discussing standard for waiving Commission rules). Telco Group's argument rests on the fact that a high percent of its revenues derive from international services and therefore its TRS payment is substantially higher that it would be if international revenues were not included and burdensome. Petition at 9-10. As noted above, however, because the Fund supports both international and interstate TRS, TRS assessments are based on both international and interstate revenues, and the fact that some contributors have relatively more international revenues, or more interstate revenues, is not relevant to ensuring adequate funding for these services.

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

Pursuant to the authority contained in section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 225, and §§ 0.141 and 0.361 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.141 and 0.361, Telco Group's Petition for Declaratory Ruling or, in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver, is denied.

Having addressed the merits of the Petition for Declaratory Ruling or, in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver, Telco Group's Petition for Stay Pending Resolution of Petition for Declaratory Ruling or, in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver is moot.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-4, adopted May 31, 2006, and released June 2, 2006. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 70 FR 3666, January 26, 2005, was issued at the request of Manning Broadcasting. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information 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 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. 05-124, adopted May 31, 2006, and released June 2, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference 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, 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. 06-51, adopted May 31, 2006, and released June 2, 2006. 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, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or 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. 06-59, adopted May 31, 2006, and released June 2, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference 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, 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 Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted May 31, 2006, and released June 2, 2006. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will not send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the aforementioned petition for reconsideration was denied.

In several regulations, NHTSA specifies that vehicle manufacturers, child restraint manufacturers or automobile dealers must provide the telephone number for our Vehicle Safety Hotline so that consumers concerned about safety recalls or potential defects could contact this agency. Because that telephone number has been updated to a toll-free number that can be used nationwide and to include a TTY number, on June 21, 2005, NHTSA amended the relevant sections of the CFR to use the new telephone number and to add our Web address so that consumers can access safety recall and defect information online (70 FR 35556; Docket 21564). We also updated text in the Part 582 (“Insurance Cost Information Regulation”) information form to reflect that our current New Car Assessment Program has information on side crash protection and relative rollover resistance. The effective date of the amended requirements pertaining to Parts 571, 575 and 582 was June 21, 2006. 1

We received a request from General Motors (GM) asking that we change the effective date for certain aspects of the final rule, from June 21, 2006 to September 1, 2006 to coincide with traditional vehicle model year changeover (NHTSA-21564-2). Part 575 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide to first purchasers, among other things, information in the owner's manual on how they may contact NHTSA with concerns about potential safety-related defects (49 CFR 575.6(a)(2)). 2 GM explained that the vast majority of the owner's manuals would be printed with the information by June 21, 2006, but that there are certain low-volume vehicles that have owner's manuals that are printed in a single edition for which the entire quantity has already been printed. In addition, the petitioner stated, even for vehicles whose owners' manuals are typically printed in two editions during a model year, there might not be a second edition if original volume productions are not met. GM was concerned about the burden associated with producing and installing owner's manual supplements in 2006 model year vehicles produced after June 21, 2006 that have owner's manuals printed before that date. GM believed that our changing the effective date to September 1, 2006, while continuing to allow early compliance with the final rule, would eliminate the burden without adversely affecting the public's ability to contact the agency. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) filed a letter supporting GM's petition (NHTSA-21564-3). The Alliance urged NHTSA to allow manufacturers the 72 additional days to meet the amended requirements of Part 575.

We have examined the issues raised in the petition and have decided to delay the effective date of the technical amendments to parts 575 and 582 until September 1, 2006. We agree with the petitioner that a September 1, 2006 effective date will not adversely affect the public's ability to contact the agency. The vast majority of vehicles will have had their owner's manuals updated with the telephone numbers by this June 21, and this delay will only affect a number of smaller vehicle lines. Further, the former Auto Safety Hotline number (1-800-424-9393) can still be used to contact the agency. Child restraint manufacturers and automobile dealers will also be provided until September 1, 2006 to reference the updated telephone number and agency web address in the materials they produce. For those that use the September 1 traditional vehicle model year changeover date to revise their materials, this amendment provides flexibility in meeting the requirements.

The amendment was not intended to impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on anyone. Not using a September 1, 2006, effective date to coincide with the traditional vehicle model year changeover was an oversight of the June 21, 2005 final rule which today's technical amendment corrects.

This document also makes a technical amendment to the regulatory text of the June 21, 2005 final rule pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child restraint systems.” The regulatory text of the June 21, 2005 is amended to reflect labeling and other changes to FMVSS No. 213 adopted by a September 9, 2005 final rule that permitted information regarding online product registration to be included in child restraint product information, including child restraint labels and owner registration forms (70 FR 53569; Docket 22324). This technical amendment makes consistent the regulatory texts of the June 21, 2005 and September 2, 2005 final rules amending FMVSS No. 213. 3