Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56577 

has become out of date since the 

previously published final rule. The 

address to submit applications found in 

40 CFR 310.15, How do I apply for 

reimbursement? and some of the 

telephone numbers listed in Appendix 

II to part 310 have changed since the 

February 18, 1998, publication of the 

final rule. EPA finds that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews Apply to This 

Action? 

The applicable statutory and 

Executive Order reviews were included 

in the February 18, 1998 Federal 

Register document. This document is a 

technical correction and as such no new 

review requirements are applicable. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

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 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 this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 310 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Local 

governments, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Superfund. 

Dated: September 22, 2005. 

Thomas P. Dunne, 

Acting Assistant Administator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, it is to amend title 40, chapter 

I of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 310—REIMBURSEMENT TO 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR 

EMERGENCY REPONSE TO 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 310 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9611(c)(11), 9623. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 310.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 310.15 How do I apply for 

reimbursement? 

* * * * * 

(d) Mail your completed application 

and supporting data to the LGR Project 

Officer, (5401A), Office of Emergency 

Management, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

■ 3. Appendix II to Part 310 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix—II to Part 310—EPA Regions 

and NRC Telephone Lines 

National Response Center ............................................................................................................................................................ (800) 424–8802 

EPA Regional Phone Numbers: 

Region I (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) ....................................................................................................................................... (617) 723–8928 

Region II (NJ, NY, PR, VI) ..................................................................................................................................................... (800) 424–8802 

Region III (PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, WV) .................................................................................................................................. (215) 814–3255 

Region IV (NC, SC, TN, MS, AL, GA, FL, KY) ...................................................................................................................... (404) 562–8700 

Region V (OH, IN, IL, WI, MN, MI) ........................................................................................................................................ (312) 353–2318 

Region VI (AR, LA, TX, OK, NM) ........................................................................................................................................... (866) 372–7745 

Region VII (IA, MO, KS, NE) .................................................................................................................................................. (913) 281–0991 

Region VIII (CO, UT, WY, MT, ND, SD) ................................................................................................................................ (303) 293–1788 

Region IX (AZ, CA, NV, AS, HI, GU, TT) .............................................................................................................................. (800) 300–2193 

Region X (ID, OR, WA, AK) ................................................................................................................................................... (206) 553–1263 

[FR Doc. 05–19354 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Part 531 

[Docket No. 05–05] 

RIN 3072–AC31 

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

Service Arrangements 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission has revised its exemption 

for non-vessel-operating common 

carriers (NVOCCs) from certain tariff 

requirements of the Shipping Act of 

1984 to allow NVOCCs and shippers’

associations with NVOCC members to 

act as shipper parties in NVOCC Service 

Arrangements. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. 

Capitol St., NW., Washington, DC 

20573–0001, (202) 523–5740, 

generalcounsel@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

On August 3, 2005, the Federal 

Maritime Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) proposed a revision to 

its regulations at 46 CFR part 531, NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier 

Service Arrangements. 70 FR 456267 

(August 8, 2005) (‘‘NPR’’). The NPR 

proposed revisions to 46 CFR sections 

531.3(o), 531.5(a), 531.6(c)(2), and 

531.6(d) that would have the effect of 

allowing non-vessel-operating common 

carriers (‘‘NVOCCs’’) to act as either 

shippers or carriers in an NVOCC 

Service Arrangement (‘‘NSA’’). Id. 

On January 19, 2005, 46 CFR part 531 

became effective, exempting NVOCCs 

from certain tariff publication 

requirements of the Shipping Act of 

1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq. 

(‘‘Shipping Act’’). 69 FR 75850 

(December 20, 2004) (final rule) (‘‘NSA 

Rule’’). The NSA Rule was issued 

pursuant to the Commission’s authority 

under section 16 of the Shipping Act, 46 

U.S.C. app. 1715 (‘‘Section 16’’). The 

exemption relieved NVOCCs from 

certain tariff requirements of the 

Shipping Act, provided the carriage in 

question was done pursuant to an NSA 

filed with the Commission and the 

essential terms are published in the 

NVOCC’s tariff. Id. 

The NSA Rule defined an ‘‘NSA 

shipper’’ as a cargo owner, the person 

for whose account the ocean 

transportation is provided, the person to 

whom delivery is to be made, or a 

shippers’ association. 46 CFR 531.3(o). 

This definition specifically excluded 

56578 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1FASA had suggested that the Commission adopt 

additional prohibitions in the NSA Rule mirroring 

section 10(c)(8), 46 U.S.C. app. 1709(c)(8), to 

NVOCCs and shippers’ associations 

with NVOCC members. As discussed 

below, this Final Rule now removes the 

limitation from the NSA Rule to allow 

NVOCCs and shippers’ associations 

with NVOCC members to act as ‘‘NSA 

shippers.’’

II. Summary of the Comments 

The Commission received eight 

comments in response to the NPR from: 

United States Department of 

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’); American 

Institute for Shippers’’ Associations, 

Inc. (‘‘AISA’’); International Shippers’’

Association (‘‘ISA’’); Fashion 

Accessories Shippers’’ Association 

(‘‘FASA’’); BDP International, Inc. 

(‘‘BDP’’); Agriculture Ocean 

Transportation Coalition, BAX Global, 

Inc., FedEx Trade Networks Transport & 

Brokerage, Inc., the National Industrial 

Transportation League, North Atlantic 

Alliance Association, Inc., 

Transportation Intermediaries 

Association, and United Parcel Service 

(collectively, ‘‘Joint Commenters’’); 

Carotrans International, Inc. 

(‘‘Carotrans’’); and the World Shipping 

Council (‘‘WSC’’). 

A. Comments in Support 

Comments supporting the adoption of 

the NPR were received from NVOCCs, 

shippers’ associations with NVOCC 

members and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. The overwhelming 

majority of the commenters support the 

revision as proposed in the NPR. DOT 

at 1; ISA at 1; AISA at 2; BDP at 1; Joint 

Commenters at 1; Carotrans at 6. 

1. Commission Has Adequate Statutory 

Authority 

Carotrans, BDP and the Joint 

Commenters assert the Commission has 

sufficiently broad authority to adopt the 

changes proposed in the NPR and that 

the proposal meets the criteria of 

Section 16. Carotrans at 2; BDP at 1–2; 

Joint Commenters at 2, 4. The Joint 

Commenters attest that the voluminous 

record developed in the proceeding 

leading to the adoption of the NSA Rule 

also adequately supports this proposal. 

Joint Comments at 4. 

2. Section 16 Criteria Are Met 

DOT, Carotrans, BDP and the Joint 

Commenters assert that the proposed 

revisions meet the two-part test of 

Section 16 inasmuch as the proposal 

would neither cause substantial 

reduction in competition nor be 

detrimental to commerce. DOT believes 

that shippers’ associations are unlikely 

to effectively coordinate resale of space 

obtained via an NSA. DOT at 3. DOT 

asserts the revision will ‘‘predictably 

enhance competition without detriment 

to commerce.’’ DOT at 3. 

a. No Substantial Reduction in 

Competition 

Carotrans and BDP further argue that 

the proposal will not result in a 

substantial reduction in competition. 

Carotrans at 4; BDP at 4. Rather, these 

commenters assert, competition at many 

levels of the international transportation 

industry will be stimulated by it. 

Carotrans at 4–5; BDP at 4–5. ‘‘The 

carrier-to-shipper NVO[CC] 

relationships which have naturally 

proliferated in the marketplace will now 

evolve into more competitive 

relationships in a confidential NSA 

environment’’ due to the greater 

flexibility NSAs afford over tariff-based 

structures. Carotrans at 5; BDP at 5. 

These commenters believe that much of 

this is due to the confidential aspects of 

NSAs and predict that ‘‘competition 

will flourish based on real commercial 

factors and not on the basis of 

transparencies of the tariff mechanism.’’

Id. 

The Joint Commenters assert that 

‘‘removal of the restrictions * * * will 

foster greater competition in the 

industry by permitting NVOCCs to 

compete against vessel-operating 

common carriers (‘‘VOCCs’’) in securing 

the business of both individual NVOCCs 

(acting as shippers) and shippers’

associations with NVOCC members.’’

Joint Commenters at 2. Without the 

adoption of the proposed changes, the 

Joint Commenters argue, VOCCs will 

continue to ‘‘enjoy a distinct 

commercial advantage’’ over NVOCCs. 

Joint Commenters at 2–3. 

b. No Detriment To Commerce 

Carotrans and BDP argue adoption of 

the NPR will not be detrimental to 

commerce because the Commission’s 

regulations already provide that 

NVOCCs may deal with each other in 

co-loading arrangements rated under 

tariffs. Carotrans at 3; BDP at 3. These 

NVOCCs assert that the NPR’s extension 

of co-loading practices into more formal 

contractual arrangements will stabilize 

those practices, and ultimately result in 

better pricing opportunities for shippers 

because NVOCCs will be better able to 

aggregate cargo to negotiate more 

favorable rates and terms with VOCCs. 

Id. Carotrans and BDP believe the 

Commission’s rationale expressed with 

respect to VOCC service contracts is 

equally applicable to NSAs between 

NVOCCs and therefore ‘‘patently not 

detrimental to commerce at any level.’’

Carotrans at 3–4; BDP at 3–4. 

B. Comment in Opposition 

FASA is the sole commenter that 

opposes adoption of the NPR. FASA at 

2. FASA argues the Commission lacks 

the statutory authority under Section 16 

to have adopted 46 CFR part 531 

originally. Id. at 1–2. FASA re-submits 

the comments it had made on the NSA 

Rule. FASA at 1. 

In comments dated September 29, 

2004, FASA urged the Commission to 

either reject an industry proposal for a 

conditional exemption or initiate a new 

proceeding and re-open the record to 

‘‘afford the further opportunity to 

develop a record specifically addressed 

to the proposed conditional 

exemption.’’ FASA comments of 

September 29, 2004 at 2. FASA 

observed that ‘‘diverse segments of the 

ocean transportation industry’’ had 

‘‘repeatedly stressed’’ that the petitions, 

and the joint comments, involved 

fundamental issues of the Commission’s 

statutory exemption authority. Id. FASA 

urged that the ‘‘Commission’s 

deliberation should not be compromised 

by the premature adoption now of the 

conditional exemption.’’ Id. 

FASA also expressed its belief that 

the arguments it had raised had not 

been addressed. Id. Specifically, FASA 

argued that the (then-proposed) NSA 

Rule was inconsistent with the statutory 

scheme of the Shipping Act, as revised 

by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (‘‘OSRA’’) because (1) it might free 

NVOCCs from the requirement that they 

publish tariffs; (2) it might lead to the 

result of shippers’ associations being 

required to seek redress of grievances 

outside the FMC; and (3) it might enable 

NVOCCs to undertake otherwise 

prohibited actions under section 10 of 

the Shipping Act. Id. at 4–5. Finally, 

FASA argued a conditional exemption 

would put shipper/customers at risk of 

‘‘dead freight’’ for not meeting a 

minimum volume commitment to an 

NVOCC under an NSA, although the 

NVOCC might have already met its 

volume commitment to the VOCC by 

aggregating other cargo. Id. at 5. 

In comments filed in response to the 

Commission’s October 31, 2004 Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 63981 

(November 3, 2004), FASA asserted that 

exemption from the tariff publication 

requirements of the Shipping Act, 

whether or not conditional upon filing 

of an NSA, was not appropriate under 

Section 16. FASA comments of 

November 19, 2004 at 2. FASA, 

however, suggested several additions 

and revisions to that proposal.1 Id. at 5. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56579 

prohibit NOVCCs offering NSAs from 

discriminating against shippers’ associations or 

ocean transportation intermediaries based on status. 

The Commission did not adopt this 

recommendation because, with the exception of 

affiliates, the NSA rule neither contemplates nor 

sanctions any concerted NSA activity. See NSA 

Rule, 69 FR at 75851–75852. See also Docket No. 

04–12, Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

Service Arrangements, 70 FR. See Docket No. 05–

06, Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Service 

Arrangements (August 30, 2005) (Notice of Inquiry) 

(requesting public comment on joint unaffiliated 

NVOCC-offered NSAs). 

C. Comments of the World Shipping 

Council 

WSC takes no position as to whether 

the proposed amendments would be 

consistent with Section 16. WSC at 1. 

WSC is concerned, however, that the 

proposed rule may enable NVOCCs to 

avoid the obligations they have as 

common carriers under the regulations 

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’), specifically 19 CFR 4.7(b)(2) 

(‘‘24-Hour Rule’’) (requiring carriers to 

submit vessel manifests to CBP at least 

24 hours prior to lading at the foreign 

port). Id. WSC therefore recommends 

that the Commission clarify that nothing 

in this rule may be interpreted to release 

NVOCCs from their duties as ‘‘carriers’’

under the 24-Hour Rule, even when 

acting as ‘‘shippers’’ with respect to 

other NVOCCs. Id. at 3. 

III. Discussion 

Section 16 authorizes the 

Commission, ‘‘upon application or on 

its own motion * * * to exempt for the 

future any * * * specified activity of 

[persons subject to the requirements of 

the Shipping Act] from any requirement 

of this Act if it finds that the exemption 

will not result in substantial reduction 

in competition or be detrimental to 

commerce.’’ 46 U.S.C. app. 1715. 

Section 16 also authorizes the 

Commission to ‘‘attach any conditions 

to any exemption.’’ Id. As it did when 

originally proposing the NSA Rule in 

late October, 2004, the Commission 

again notes that Section 16 authorizes 

the Commission to exempt by rule or 

order matters it regulates under the 

Shipping Act. See 69 FR 63981, 63985 

(November 3, 2004) (matter concerns 

‘‘specified activity’’ subject to a 

‘‘requirement’’ of the Shipping Act as 

those terms are used in Section 16). The 

Commission continues to believe that 

the NSA Rule falls within its exemption 

authority and comports with the goals of 

the Shipping Act and Congress’s 

legislative intent as expressed most 

recently by OSRA. We note that 46 CFR 

part 531 does not completely exempt 

NVOCCs from the tariff publication 

requirements of the Shipping Act, as 

some commenters in the original 

proceeding had urged. We again 

disagree with FASA’s assertion that the 

exemption is beyond the Commission’s 

authority to exercise. See 69 FR at 

63985. 

The Commission is mindful that the 

authority of Section 16 can be exercised 

only when the Commission finds that 

such action will result neither in 

substantial reduction in competition nor 

be detrimental to commerce. 46 U.S.C. 

app. 1715. The Commission has now, 

through publication and request for 

comment, sought information to help it 

determine whether the proposed 

revision to 46 CFR part 531 would cause 

either of these untoward effects. As 

explained more fully below, the 

Commission finds the proposed revision 

would cause neither substantial 

reduction in competition nor be 

detrimental to commerce. 

A. Section 16 Criteria 

1. Substantial Reduction in Competition 

The Commission has evaluated the 

possible impact of its proposal on 

competition between NVOCCs, between 

NVOCCs and VOCCs, and between 

shippers’ associations. Most 

commenters suggest that the NPR, 

which would allow NVOCCs and 

shippers’ associations with NVOCC 

members to act as NSA shippers, will 

not result in a substantial reduction in 

competition among any of these groups. 

As Carotrans points out, NVOCCs may 

already deal with each other 

commercially in shipper-to-carrier coloading arrangements subject to the 

Commission’s tariff rules. Indeed, rather 

than reducing competition, NSAs 

among NVOCCs may lead to a more 

competitive environment for NVOCCs 

who serve other NVOCCs. 

Similarly, the Commission finds 

persuasive the assertions of AISA, ISA 

and DOT that allowing shippers’

associations with NVOCC members to 

act as NSA shippers will not result in 

substantial reduction in competition 

among shippers’ associations, nor will it 

have an effect on the resale of space that 

NVOCCs may obtain as members of a 

shippers’ association. We are persuaded 

that, as DOT phrases it, this ‘‘leveling of 

the playing field’’ for all shippers’

associations will enhance competition. 

Furthermore, recent case law gives us 

some assurance that courts are not likely 

to find that NVOCCs acting concertedly 

in NSAs to be immune from the 

prohibitions of the antitrust laws. 

United States v. Gosselin World Wide 

Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d. 502 (4th Cir 

2005). Therefore, the Commission’s 

previous concerns, that allowing 

NVOCCs to act as both shipper and 

carrier parties in an NSA would create 

a potential for reduction in competition 

through immunity from the antitrust 

laws, have been largely alleviated. 

Moreover, as Carotrans and BDP 

assert, the Commission’s regulations 

have recognized and provided for the 

sale of ocean transportation services by 

one NVOCC acting as carrier to another 

acting as shipper under tariff 

regulations. See 46 CFR 520.11(c)(iii) 

(co-loading). Although this Final Rule 

addresses basically the same 

commercial relationship, it should, as 

the commenters suggest, provide greater 

flexibility over such transactions done 

under a tariff. 

2. Detriment to Commerce 

We find that the Final Rule will not 

be detrimental to commerce. See 69 FR 

63987 (discussion of criterion). Neither 

the original rulemaking nor this Final 

Rule eliminates the requirement that 

common carriers publish tariffs and 

adhere to rates that are either published 

in tariffs or filed in NSAs. Principles of 

common carriage inherent in the 

Shipping Act are preserved by the 

continuing application of all of the 

prohibitions contained in section 10 of 

the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1709, 

e.g., against retaliation, deferred rebates, 

unreasonable refusals to deal, etc. 

Accordingly, the protections provided 

to the shipping public will be preserved 

and detriment to commerce will not 

occur. 

The Joint Comments assert that the 

proposal will promote commerce by 

expanding the opportunity for NVOCCs 

acting as shippers to choose their 

service provider and will ultimately 

lead to greater commercial efficiencies. 

We are persuaded by the comments that 

no detriment to ocean commerce will 

arise from extending the exemption of 

46 CFR part 531 to enable NVOCCs to 

provide all their customers, whether 

they be other NVOCCs or beneficial 

cargo owners or shippers’ associations, 

with NSAs tailored to meet the 

individual needs of those customers. We 

believe that not only will the exemption 

not be detrimental to commerce as 

required by Section 16, but there may 

also be merit to the assertion that the 

expansion of the exemption will prove 

beneficial to commerce. 

In summary, the Commission finds 

the proposed revision meets the criteria 

of Section 16 as it will cause neither 

substantial reduction in competition nor 

detriment to commerce. Further, this 

Final Rule in no way relieves NVOCCs 

of any other requirements of the 

Shipping Act, Commission regulations, 

or the requirements of other statutes and 

56580 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations (e.g., the 24-hour Rule) to 

which they are subject. 

IV. Statutory Reviews 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the 

collection of information requirements 

contained in this Final Rule have been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review. The 

estimated total annual burden for the 

estimated 635 annual respondents is 

190,252 person-hours. No comments 

were received on this estimate. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605, the 

Chairman of the Federal Maritime 

Commission has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration, that the Final Rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although NVOCCs as an industry 

include small entities, the Final Rule 

provides, but does not require, an 

alternative for NVOCCs from certain 

tariff requirements of the Shipping Act 

and the Commission’s regulations. It 

potentially relieves a burden. Therefore, 

the Commission has found that the 

Final Rule will have no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects for 46 CFR Part 531 

Exports, Non-vessel-operating 

common carriers, Ocean transportation 

intermediaries. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Maritime 

Commission amends 46 CFR part 531 as 

follows: 

PART 531—NVOCC SERVICE 

ARRANGEMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 531 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. app. 1715. 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (o) of § 531.3 to 

read as follows: 

§ 531.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(o) NSA shipper means a cargo owner, 

the person for whose account the ocean 

transportation is provided, the person to 

whom delivery is to be made, a 

shippers’ association, or an ocean 

transportation intermediary, as defined 

in section 3(17)(B) of the Act, that 

accepts responsibility for payment of all 

applicable charges under the NSA. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise paragraph (a) of § 531.5 to 

read as follows: 

§ 531.5 Duty to file. 

(a) The duty under this part to file 

NSAs, amendments and notices, and to 

publish statements of essential terms, 

shall be upon the NVOCC acting as 

carrier party to the NSA. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise paragraph (c)(2) and add 

paragraph (d)(4) to § 531.6 to read as 

follows: 

§ 531.6 NVOCC Service Arrangements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Make reference to terms not 

explicitly contained in the NSA itself 

unless those terms are contained in a 

publication widely available to the 

public and well known within the 

industry. Reference may not be made to 

a tariff of a common carrier other than 

the NVOCC acting as carrier party to the 

NSA. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) No NVOCC may knowingly and 

willfully enter into an NSA with an 

ocean transportation intermediary that 

does not have a tariff and a bond, 

insurance, or other surety as required by 

sections 8 and 19 of the Act. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–19369 Filed 9–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 23 

[IB Docket No. 00–248; FCC 05–130] 

Revisions of the Commission’s Rules 

and Spectrum Usage by Satellite 

Network Earth Stations and Space 

Stations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communication Commission (FCC) 

invited commenters to propose 

revisions to part 23 of the Commission’s 

rules, governing International Fixed 

Public Radiocommunication Services 

(IFRS). Because no one proposed any 

revisions to part 23, we terminate our 

consideration of part 23 issues in this 

context of IB Docket 00–248. 

DATES: Effective October 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Spaeth (202)418–1539, Satellite 

Division, International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Seventh 

Report and Order in IB Docket 00–248, 

adopted June 20, 2005 and released June 

24, 2005. The full text of the Seventh 

Report and Order is 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 20054. This 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 202–

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

No one proposed revising or 

eliminating any provisions in part 23 of 

the Commission’s rules in response to 

the NPRM published elsewhere in this 

issue. As a result, we find that the 

record before us at this time does not 

provide any basis for revising part 23 of 

the Commission’s rules. Accordingly, 

we will not revise part 23 of the 

Commission’s rules at this time. This 

terminates our consideration of part 23 

of the Commission’s rules issues in the 

context of IB Docket No. 00–248. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) requires 

that a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ The RFA generally defines 

‘‘small entity’’ having the same meaning 

as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). No FRFA is 

necessary for the Seventh Report and 

Order because we have decided not to 

make any changes to the Commission’s 

rules at this time. 

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 

section 4(i), 7(a), 11, 303(c), 303(f), 

303(g), and 303(r), of the 

Communication Act of 1934, as