Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57181 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain federal assistance 

no longer available in special 

flood hazard 

areas 

Region V 

Wisconsin: Manitowoc, City of, 

Manitowoc County.

550240 May 21, 1971, Emerg; April 15, 1977, Reg; 

September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Region VII 

Nebraska: Brule, Village of, Keith County.310128 July 10, 1975, Emerg; September 27, 1985, 

Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Campbell, Village of, Franklin County. .. 310256 January 6, 1998, Emerg; March 1, 2001, 

Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Region VIII 

Colorado: Castle Rock, Town of, Douglas County. 080050 April 22, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1978, 

Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Larkspur, Town of, Douglas County ...... 080309 March 27, 1987, Emerg; September 30, 

1987, Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Region IX 

Arizona: Fountain Hills, Town of, Maricopa County. 040135 February 10, 1994, Emerg; February 10, 

1994, Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Paradise Valley, Town of, Maricopa 

County. 

040049 September 15, 1972, Emerg; May 1, 1980, 

Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

California: Fresno, City of, Santa Barbara County. 060048 October 30, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 

1982, Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp. 

......do ............... Do. 

Guadalupe, City of, Santa Barbara 

County. 

060333 August 21, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1982, 

Reg; September 30, 2005, Susp..

......do ............... Do. 

*......do....=Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.-Emergency; Reg.-Regular; Susp.-Suspension. 

Dated: September 21, 2005. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Acting Mitigation Division Director, 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 05–19637 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 3, 10, 114, 147, 151, and 

175 

[USCG–2005–22329] 

RIN 1625–ZA05 

Shipping; Technical, Organizational 

and Conforming Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive changes throughout Title 46 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

purpose of this rule is to make 

conforming amendments and technical 

corrections to Coast Guard shipping and 

transportation regulations. This rule 

will have no substantive effect on the 

regulated public. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in 

this preamble are available for 

inspection or copying under docket 

number [USCG–2005–22329] at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. You may also find this 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call Mr. 

Ray Davis, Project Manager, Standards 

Evaluation and Development Division 

(G–MSR–1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202–

267–6826. If you have questions on 

viewing, or submitting material to the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, 

Department of Transportation, at 202–

493–0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A) and (b)(B), the Coast Guard 

finds that this rule is exempt from 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements because some of these 

changes involve agency organization 

and practices, and all of these changes 

are non-substantive. This rule consists 

only of corrections and editorial, 

organizational, and conforming 

amendments. These changes will have 

no substantive effect on the public; 

therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an 

NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the 

Coast Guard finds that, for the same 

reasons, good cause exists for making 

this rule effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Discussion of the Rule 

Each year Title 46 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is updated on 

October 1. This rule, which becomes 

effective on September 30, 2005, makes 

technical and editorial corrections 

throughout Title 46. This rule does not 

change any substantive requirements of 

the existing regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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. We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

As this rule involves internal agency 

practices and procedures and nonsubstantive changes, it will not impose 

any costs on the public. 

57182 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Small Entities 

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. This 

rule does not require a general NPRM 

and, therefore, is exempt from the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Although this rule is 

exempt, we have reviewed it for 

potential economic impact on small 

entities. 

This rule will have no substantive 

effect on the regulated public. 

Therefore, 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. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

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. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

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. 

Protection of Children 

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. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

Energy Effects 

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. 

Technical Standards 

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. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (b), of 

the Instruction from further 

environmental documentation because 

this rule involves editorial, procedural, 

and internal agency functions. An 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

46 CFR Part 3 

Oceanographic research vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research. 

46 CFR Part 10 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools, Seamen. 

46 CFR Part 114 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

46 CFR Part 147 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Labeling, Marine safety, Packaging and 

containers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

46 CFR Part 151 

Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials 

transportation, Marine safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control. 

46 CFR Part 175 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 

CFR parts 3, 10, 114, 147, 151 and 175 

as follows: 

PART 3—DESIGNATION OF 

OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 

VESSELS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3 

continues to read as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57183 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3306; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 3.03–1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 3.03–1, remove the words ‘‘in 

this subchapter’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘in this part’’. 

PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME 

PERSONNEL 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 10 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. 

chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 

8906; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation 0170.1. Section 10.107 is also 

issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

§ 10.201 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 10.201(c), remove the text 

‘‘§ 10.464(i)’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘10.467(h)’’. 

§ 10.467 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 10.467(b), after the words 

‘‘under paragraph’’, remove the text 

‘‘(f)’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘(g)’’. 

PART 114—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 114 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 

Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 U.S.C. 

App. 1804; Department of Homeland 

Security No. 0170.1; Sec. 114.900 also issued 

under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

§ 114.400 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 114.400(b) in the definition for 

‘‘High speed craft’’, after the text 

‘‘V=3.7xdispl .1667’’, remove the text ‘‘h’’. 

PART 147—HAZARDOUS SHIPS’

STORES 

■ 8 . The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 

FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 147.30 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 147.30(b), after the words 

‘‘Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

Regulations in’’, remove the text ‘‘26 

CFR’’ and add, in its place, the text ‘‘16 

CFR’’. 

PART 151—BARGES CARRYING BULK 

LIQUID HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

CARGOES 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 151 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 151.15–10 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 151.15–10(b), remove the text 

‘‘151.03–43’’ and add, in its place, 

‘‘151.03–49’’

PART 175—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 175 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 

3703; Pub. L 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 

U.S.C. App. 1804; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 175.900 also 

issued under authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

§ 175.400 [Amended] 

■ 13. In § 175.400 in the definition for 

‘‘High speed craft’’, after the text 

‘‘V=3.7xdispl .1667’’, remove the text ‘‘h’’. 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Stefan G. Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, United States Coast 

Guard. 

[FR Doc. 05–19723 Filed 9–28–05; 1:31 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 97–82; FCC 04–295] 

Competitive Bidding Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In the Second Order on 

Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and 

Order the Commission grants two 

petitions for reconsideration filed in 

response to the Commission’s Part 1 

Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth 

Report and Order, 68 FR 42984 (July 21, 

2003) (Part 1 Reconsideration Order). 

The Commission revises one element of 

the exemption from part 1 attribution 

rules for certain rural telephone 

cooperatives that participate in the 

Commission’s spectrum auction 

program. The revised rule permits a 

rural telephone cooperative applicant or 

its controlling interest to demonstrate 

that either it is eligible for tax-exempt 

status under the Internal Revenue Code 

or it adheres to the cooperative 

principles enumerated in a previous 

decision of the United States Tax Court. 

DATES: Effective December 9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Huber, Auctions and Spectrum 

Access Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–

0660. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Second Order on 

Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and 

Order adopted December 22, 2004 and 

released on January 31, 2005. The 

complete text of the Second Order on 

Reconsideration of the Fifth 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 20554. 

The Second Order on Reconsideration 

of the Fifth Report and Order and 

related Commission documents may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC, 20554, 

telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile 

202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI 

at its Web site: http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering 

documents from BCPI, please make sure 

you provide the appropriate FCC 

document number (for example, FCC 

04–295 for the Second Order on 

Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and 

Order) and related documents are also 

available on the Internet at the 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/. 

I. Overview 

1. In the Second Order on 

Reconsideration of the Part 1 Fifth 

Report and Order, the Commission 

grants two petitions for reconsideration 

of the Commission’s Part 1 

Reconsideration Order. The petitioners 

seek to modify one of the elements of 

the three-part test that rural telephone 

cooperatives must satisfy to receive a 

limited exemption from the attribution 

rules that are part of the Commission’s 

part 1 competitive bidding rules. In 

particular, petitioners seek to refine a 

portion of the rule that defines the 

category of eligible rural telephone 

cooperatives so as not to limit the 

flexibility of rural telephone 

cooperatives to provide new 

telecommunications and other advanced 

communications services to consumers 

in rural areas. In this decision, the 

Commission revises the third element of 

the exemption to permit a rural 

telephone cooperative applicant (or its 

controlling interest) to demonstrate that 

either it is eligible for tax-exempt status 

pursuant to section 501(c)(12) of the 

Internal Revenue Code or it adheres to 

the cooperative principles enumerated 

in Puget Sound Plywood, Inc. v. 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue 

(Puget Sound), 44 T.C. 305 (1965). The 

Commission also clarifies how the first 

element of this rule applies in cases 

where a rural telephone cooperative 

applicant is organized in a jurisdiction