Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57531 

2003 or earlier, WordPerfect 9.0 or 

earlier, Rich Text Format (RTF), or 

ASCII text file format. There will be a 

browse button on the form that will 

allow submitters to attach the comment 

file to the form and then to submit the 

completed form to the Office. The 

personal information entered into the 

required fields on the form page will not 

be publicly posted on the Copyright 

Office website, but the Office intends to 

post on its website the proposed class 

and the summary of the argument, as 

well as the entire, attached comment 

document. Only the commenter’s name 

is required on the comment document 

itself and a commenter who does not 

want other personal information posted 

on the Office’s website should avoid 

including other private information on 

the comment itself. Except in 

exceptional circumstances, changes to 

the submitted comment will not be 

allowed and it will become a part of the 

permanent public record of this 

rulemaking. 

If by means of the United States 

Postal Service or hand delivery: Send, to 

the appropriate address listed above, 

two copies, each on a 3.5–inch write–

protected diskette or CD–ROM, labeled 

with the legal name of the person 

making the submission and the entity 

on whose behalf the comment was 

submitted, if any. The document itself 

must be in a single file in either Adobe 

Portable Document File (PDF) format 

(preferred), Microsoft Word Version 

2003 or earlier, WordPerfect Version 9 

or earlier, Rich Text Format (RTF), or 

ASCII text file document. If the 

comment is hand delivered or mailed to 

the Office and the submitter does not 

wish to have the address, telephone 

number, or email address publicly 

displayed on the Office’s website, the 

comment should not include such 

information on the document itself, but 

only the name and affiliation, if any, of 

the commenter. In that case, a cover 

letter should be included with the 

comment that contains the commenter’s 

address, phone number, email address, 

and for initial comments, the proposed 

class of copyrighted work to be 

exempted and a brief summary of the 

argument. 

Anyone who is unable to submit a 

comment in electronic form (on the 

website as an attachment or by means of 

the United States Postal Service or hand 

delivery on disk or CD–ROM) should 

submit an original and fifteen paper 

copies by hand or by means of the 

United States Postal Service to the 

appropriate address listed above. It may 

not be feasible for the Office to place 

these comments on its website. 

General Requirements for all 

submissions: All submissions (in either 

electronic or non–electronic form 

delivered through the website, by means 

of the United States Postal Service by 

hand–delivery or by courier) must 

contain on the comment itself, the name 

of the person making the submission 

and his or her title and affiliation, if the 

comment is being submitted on behalf 

of that organization. The mailing 

address, telephone number, telefax 

number, if any, and email address need 

not be included on the comment itself, 

but must be included in some form, e.g., 

on the website form or in a cover letter 

with the submission. All submissions 

must also include the class/summary/ 

factual and/or legal argument format in 

the comment itself for each class of 

work proposed or for each reply to a 

proposal. 

Initial comments and reply comments 

will be accepted for a 30–day period in 

each round, and a form will be placed 

on the Copyright Office website at least 

30 days prior to the deadline for 

submission. Initial comments will be 

accepted from November 2, 2005 until 

December 1, 2005, at 5:00 P.M. Eastern 

Standard Time, at which time the 

submission form will be removed from 

the website. Reply comments will be 

accepted from January 4, 2006 until 

February 2, 2006, at 5:00 P.M. Eastern 

Standard Time. 

4. Hearings and Further Comments 

The Register also plans on holding 

public hearings in the Spring after 

receipt of the comments and reply 

comments. The tentative dates for the 

Washington, DC hearings are currently 

March 29 and 31, 2006, and April 3 and 

4, 2006, and the hearings most likely 

will take place in the James Madison 

Memorial Building of the Library of 

Congress in Washington, DC. The dates 

and location of hearings for the West 

Coast have yet to be decided. A separate 

notice for details on all hearings in this 

rulemaking proceeding will be 

published at a later time in the Federal 

Register and on the Copyright Office’s 

website. In order to assist the Copyright 

Office in identifying the number of days 

for hearings, the comment and reply 

comment form page will contain non–

required fields asking whether the 

commenter is likely to request to testify 

and if so, in which location. Formal 

requests to testify will be solicited early 

in 2006. 

To provide sufficient flexibility in this 

proceeding, in the event that unforeseen 

developments occur that would 

significantly affect the Register’s 

recommendation, an opportunity to 

petition the Register for consideration of 

new information will be made available 

after the deadlines specified. A petition, 

including proposed new classes of 

works to be exempted, must be in 

writing and must set forth the reasons 

why the information could not have 

been made available earlier and why it 

should be considered by the Register 

after the deadline. A petition must also 

be accompanied by fifteen copies of any 

new proposed exemption that includes 

the proposed class of works to be 

exempted, a summary of the argument, 

the factual basis for such an exemption 

and the legal argument supporting such 

an exemption. These materials must be 

delivered to the Copyright Office at the 

address listed above. The Register will 

make a determination whether to accept 

such a petition based on the stage of the 

rulemaking process at which the request 

is made and the merits of the petition. 

If a petition is accepted, the Register 

will announce deadlines for comments 

in response to the petition. 

Dated: September 27, 2005 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 05–19721 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–33–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 62 

[R07–OAR–2005–MO–0006; FRL–7978–2] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Implementation Plans; 

State of Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission by the state of 

Missouri which revises the Restriction 

of Emission of Sulfur Compounds rule. 

The Missouri rule establishes general 

requirements for emissions of sulfur 

compounds from various source 

categories, and establishes specific 

emissions requirements for certain 

named sources. 

We propose to approve most of the 

revisions to the rule because they 

involve clarifications, updates, and 

other improvements to the current rule. 

This proposed action does not include 

a portion of the rule that regulates 

ambient concentrations of sulfur 

compounds, because this provision is 

not in the current SIP, and we do not 

57532 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

directly enforce Missouri’s Air Quality 

Standards. 

We propose to disapprove revisions to 

two source-specific references because 

the state has not demonstrated that the 

revisions are protective of the short-term 

SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R07–OAR–

2005–MO–0006, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. 

4. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Amy Algoe-Eakin, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID Number R07–OAR–2005–MO 

0006. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the Federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Algoe-Eakin at (913) 551–7942, or 

by e-mail at algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

What is a SIP? 

What is the Federal approval process for a 

SIP? 

What does Federal approval or disapproval of 

a state regulation mean to me? 

What is being addressed in this document? 

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP 

revision been met? 

What action is EPA proposing? 

What Is a SIP? 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requires states to develop air 

pollution regulations and control 

strategies to ensure that state air quality 

meets the NAAQSs established by EPA. 

These ambient standards are established 

under section 109 of the CAA, and they 

currently address six criteria pollutants. 

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

Each state must submit these 

regulations and control strategies to us 

for approval and incorporation into the 

Federally-enforceable SIP. 

Each Federally-approved SIP protects 

air quality primarily by addressing air 

pollution at its point of origin. These 

SIPs can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information 

such as emission inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. 

What Is the Federal Approval Process 

for a SIP? 

In order for state regulations to be 

incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally 

adopt the regulations and control 

strategies consistent with state and 

Federal requirements. This process 

generally includes a public notice, 

public hearing, public comment period, 

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body. 

Once a state rule, regulation, or 

control strategy is adopted, the state 

submits it to us for inclusion into the 

SIP. We must provide public notice and 

seek additional public comment 

regarding the proposed Federal action 

on the state submission. If adverse 

comments are received, they must be 

addressed prior to any final Federal 

action by us. 

All state regulations and supporting 

information approved by EPA under 

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated 

into the Federally-approved SIP. 

Records of such SIP actions are 

maintained in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, 

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state 

regulations which are approved are not 

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR 

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by 

reference,’’ which means that we have 

approved a given state regulation with 

a specific effective date. 

What Does Federal Approval or 

Disapproval of a State Regulation Mean 

to me? 

Enforcement of the state regulation 

before and after it is incorporated into 

the Federally-approved SIP is primarily 

a state responsibility. However, after the 

regulation is Federally approved, we are 

authorized to take enforcement action 

against violators. Citizens are also 

offered legal recourse to address 

violations as described in section 304 of 

the CAA. If a state regulation is 

disapproved, it is not incorporated into 

the Federally-approved SIP, and is not 

enforceable by EPA or by citizens under 

section 304. In the case of a revision to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57533 

a Federally-approved state regulation, 

disapproval of the revision means that 

the underlying state regulation prior to 

the state’s revision remains as the 

Federally enforceable requirement. 

What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

We are proposing to approve the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources’ (MDNR) request to include, 

as a revision to Missouri’s SIP, 

amendments to rule 10 CSR 10–6.260, 

Restriction of Emission of Sulfur 

Compounds. We are also proposing to 

approve changes to this rule as an 

amendment to the 111(d) plan which 

will replace the current rule for sulfuric 

acid mist production. This rule was 

adopted by the Missouri Air 

Conservation Commission on February 

3, 2004, and became effective under 

state law on May 30, 2004. This rule 

was submitted to EPA on June 14, 2004, 

and included comments on the rule 

during the state’s adoption process, the 

state’s response to comments and other 

information necessary to meet EPA’s 

completeness criteria. For additional 

information on completeness criteria, 

the reader should refer to 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. 

The revisions to Missouri rule, 10 

CSR 10–6.260, Restriction of Emission 

of Sulfur Compounds, update the rule to 

correct inaccurate and regulated source 

information, provide an exemption for 

natural gas fueled combustion, and 

clarify the exemption for source 

categories subject to a new source 

performance standard to assure that 

such sources are subject to sulfur limits. 

In this rule revision, Missouri also 

revised provisions relating to sulfuric 

acid mist production, previously 

approved by EPA under section 111(d). 

These provisions were renumbered but 

not otherwise changed. By renumbering 

the rule, Missouri will have given the 

111(d) plan a new effective date that 

will be reflected in 40 CFR part 62. As 

such, EPA is proposing to approve 

Section (3)(A)1,2,3 and 4 into the 111(d) 

plan. In addition, we are not acting on 

renumbered Section (3)(B), titled 

Restriction of Concentration of Sulfur 

Compounds in Ambient Air, as EPA 

does not directly enforce Missouri’s air 

quality standards. 

We are also proposing partial 

disapproval of revisions to Missouri 

rule, 10 CSR 10–6.260, Restriction of 

Emission of Sulfur Compounds. We 

believe that revisions to Section (3), 

Table 1, regarding the emission rate for 

the Kansas City Power & Light’s 

Hawthorn and Montrose Station 

facilities are not consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. Section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires, in 

part, that the plan include emission 

limitations to meet the requirements of 

the Act, including the requirement in 

Section 110(a)(1) that the plan must be 

adequate to attain and maintain ambient 

air quality standards. In addition, 40 

CFR 51.112 requires that the plan 

demonstrate that rules contained in the 

SIP are adequate to attain the ambient 

air quality standards. We believe that 

these requirements have not been met 

with respect to the Hawthorn and 

Montrose Station limits. We note that 

the Hawthorn unit is subject to a 

Federally-enforceable state permit 

which limits sulfur emissions to .12 

pounds per million BTU heat input on 

a thirty-day rolling average basis. 

However, although the facility must 

comply with this more stringent limit 

(and all other units listed in the rule 

must comply with more stringent limits 

established in permits), the SIP must 

reflect requirements that ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The state rule, with respect to 

the Hawthorn and Montrose Station 

facilities, does not reflect such 

requirements. 

We believe that the revisions, 

contained in Section (3), Table 1, 

regarding sulfur dioxide emission rates 

for these plants, which were made as a 

result of comments provided during the 

public comment period, are not 

protective of the short-term sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS. Although the emission 

rates for both facilities have been 

lowered, the averaging time for the rates 

has been dramatically increased, from a 

three-hour average to an annual average. 

Missouri has not provided a 

demonstration, as required by the CAA 

and EPA regulations, that the standards 

and, particularly, the three-hour and the 

twenty-four hour standards can be 

protected by an annual emission limit. 

In addition, because Missouri’s 

proposed rule contained a three-hour 

averaging time, the change increasing 

the emission limits to the annual 

averaging time was not subject to public 

notice and comment. 

Have the Requirements for Approval of 

a SIP Revision Been met? 

Except as noted above, the state 

submittal has met the public notice 

requirements for SIP submissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The 

submittal also satisfied the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. In addition, as explained 

below and in more detail in the 

technical support document that is part 

of this document, EPA believes that 

portions of the revision meet the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. However, as 

also explained below, and in the 

technical support document, EPA 

believes that portions of the revision do 

not meet the requirements of section 

110 and implementing regulations. 

What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA states 

that EPA may partially approve and 

partially disapprove a SIP submittal if it 

finds that only a portion of the submittal 

meets the requirements of the Act. We 

believe that a portion of the Missouri 

rule revision meets the requirements of 

the CAA, and that two specific 

provisions of the revision do not. 

Because the portions proposed for 

disapproval are independent from those 

proposed for approval, we believe that 

Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10–6.260, 

Restriction of Emission of Sulfur 

Compounds, can be partially approved 

and partially disapproved. We are also 

proposing approval of the revisions to 

the 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid mist 

production. 

For these reasons, we propose to 

approve all revisions to Missouri rule, 

10 CSR 10–6.260, Restriction of 

Emission of Sulfur Compounds with 

two exceptions. EPA does not intend to 

act on renumbered subsection (3)(B), 

Restriction of Concentration of Sulfur 

Compounds in Ambient Air, since the 

underlying subsection is not in the 

current SIP. The second exception is the 

revision of the emission limits and 

changes to the averaging time for each 

limit from a three-hour average to an 

annual average for two of the utilities 

listed in the rule. We believe that the 

revisions contained in section (3) Table 

1, regarding the SO2 emission rate for 

the Kansas City Power & Light 

Hawthorn plant, and the revision 

contained in section (3) Table 1, 

regarding the Kansas City Power & Light 

Montrose Station, should not be 

approved because they are not 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA. Disapproval of these revisions 

would not trigger sanctions under 

section 179 of the Act, because the 

revisions are not required by Part D of 

Title I of the CAA and are not required 

by a call for a SIP revision under section 

110(k)(5) of the CAA. The emission 

limits in the current SIP for these units 

would remain as the Federally-approved 

SIP obligations. 

With the exception of the revisions to 

the source-specific limits described 

above, EPA believes the remainder of 

the revisions are approvable. 

57534 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that the proposed approvals in this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). The proposed partial 

disapproval will not affect any existing 

state requirements applicable to small 

entities. Federal disapproval of the state 

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s partial 

disapproval of the submittal does not 

impose a new Federal requirement. 

Therefore, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed disapproval action 

does not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Sulfuric 

acid plants, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: September 23, 2005. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 05–19711 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0084; FRL–7978–5] 

RIN 2060–AN38 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for secondary aluminum 

production, which were issued on 

March 23, 2000 under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), and amended on 

December 30, 2002. This action 

proposes to correct a punctuation error 

in the definition of ‘‘clean charge’’ and 

a typographical error in the operating 

temperature of a scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

afterburner. 

In the Rules and Regulations section 

of this Federal Register, we are taking 

direct final action on the proposed 

amendments because we view the 

amendments as noncontroversial, and 

we anticipate no adverse comments. We 

have explained our reasons for the 

proposed amendments in the preamble 

to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no adverse comments, 

we will take no further action on the 

proposed amendments. If we receive 

adverse comments, we will withdraw 

the amendments. We will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register indicating that the amendments 

are being withdrawn. If the direct final 

rule amendments in the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register are withdrawn, all comments 

will be addressed in a subsequent final 

action based on the proposed 

amendments. We will not institute a 

second comment period on the 

subsequent final action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

The regulatory text for the proposal is 

identical to that for the direct final rule 

published in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register. For 

further supplementary information, see 

the direct final rule. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

must be received by November 2, 2005, 

unless a public hearing is requested by 

October 13, 2005. If a hearing is 

requested, written comments must be 

received by November 17, 2005. Public