Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61741 

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, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

This rule is a safety zone and 

therefore fits the category described in 

paragraph (34)(g). An ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A new section 165.T07–120 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–120 Safety zone; Tampa Bay, 

Florida. 

(a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard 

is establishing a safety zone on the 

waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in 

the vicinity of the Clearwater Memorial 

Bascule bridge. The safety zone 

encompasses all waters within a 1,000 

foot radius of the Clearwater Memorial 

Bascule bridge located at 27°58′00′′ N, 

82°48′17′′ W. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this Regulated Area 

is prohibited to all vessels and persons 

without the prior permission of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port St 

Petersburg or his designated 

representative. 

(c) Effective Period. This Safety Zone 

is effective from 7:30 a.m. on October 4, 

2005 through 2 p.m. on November 8, 

2005 and will be enforced when a Coast 

Guard and/or Pinellas County Sheriff 

marine unit is on scene. 

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

J.A. Servidio, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, St Petersburg, Florida. 

[FR Doc. 05–21396 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket # R08–OAR–2005–UT–0002; FRL–

7987–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; State Implementation Plan 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. 

SUMMARY: When EPA approved Utah 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions for the Salt Lake City Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan and 

related Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program for Salt 

Lake County, we inadvertently used an 

invalid acronym for the Utah Annotated 

Code. EPA is correcting this error with 

this document. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 25, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and 

Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466, 

phone (303) 312–6436, and e-mail at: 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(i) Throughout this document, 

wherever we, us or our is used it means 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(ii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iii) The word State means the State 

of Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect acronym in a 

previous rulemaking. Thus, notice and 

public comment procedures are 

unnecessary. We find that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

I. Correction 

Correction for the Federal Register 

Document Published on August 1, 2005 

(70 FR 44055) 

On August 1, 2005 we published a 

final rule approving the revised Salt 

Lake City Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan and related revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

October 19, 2004. When we published 

this rule, within the regulatory text we 

incorrectly referred to the Utah 

Annotated Code using the acronym 

UACR instead of UAC. Therefore, we 

are correcting the regulatory text in 40 

CFR 52.2320(c)(60) to replace all 

references to UACR with UAC. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the Supplementary 

Information section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4, 209 Stat. 48 (1995)). In addition, 

this action does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments or 

impose a significant intergovernmental 

mandate, as described in sections 203 

and 204 of UMRA. 

This rule also does not have 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 

61742 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the Executive 

Order. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

EPA’s compliance with these statutes 

and Executive Orders for the underlying 

rules is discussed in the August 1, 2005 

rule approving the revised Salt Lake 

City Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Plan and related revisions submitted by 

the Governor of Utah on October 19, 

2004. 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 

5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Section 808 allows the 

issuing agency to make a rule effective 

sooner than otherwise provided by the 

CRA if the agency makes a good cause 

finding that notice and public procedure 

is impracticable, unnecessary or 

contrary to the public interest. 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 November 25, 2005. 

EPA will submit a report containing this 

rule and other required information to 

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This correction to the 

identification of plan for Utah is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

section 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—[CORRECTED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart TT—UTAH 

§ 52.2320 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended in 

paragraphs (c)(60) introductory text, 

(c)(60)(i)(A), and (c)(60)(i)(B) by revising 

‘‘UACR’’ to read ‘‘UAC’’ wherever it 

appears. 

[FR Doc. 05–21266 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[ET Docket No. 00–258; FCC 05–172] 

Advanced Wireless Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document reallocates the 

2155–2160 MHz band for Fixed and 

Mobile services and designates the 

2155–2175 MHz band for Advanced 

Wireless Service (AWS) use. We 

continue our ongoing efforts to promote 

spectrum utilization and efficiency with 

regard to the provision of new services, 

including Advanced Wireless Services 

(AWS). 

DATES: Effective November 25, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Priya Shrinivasan, Office of Engineering 

& Technology, (202) 418–7005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Eighth 

Report and Order, ET Docket No. 00–

258, FCC 05–172, adopted September 

23, 2005, and released September 29, 

2005. 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. 

Summary of the Report and Order 

1. In the Eighth Report and Order 

(‘‘Eighth R&O’’) in ET Docket No. 00–

258, the Commission continues its 

ongoing efforts to promote spectrum 

utilization and efficiency with regard to 

the provision of new services, including 

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). 

Advanced wireless systems could 

provide, for example, a wide range of 

voice, data and broadband services over 

a variety of mobile and fixed networks. 

Specifically, the Commission reallocates 

the 2155–2160 MHz band for Fixed and 

Mobile services and designates the 

2155–2175 MHz band for AWS use. 

2. Based on the Commission’s 

determination that additional spectrum 

is needed for AWS use, and because the 

characteristics of the 2155–2175 MHz 

band make it well suited for such use, 

concludes that designating this band for 

AWS will promote efficient use of the 

spectrum and allow for the rapid 

introduction of high-value services in 

the band. Because the 2155–2175 MHz 

band is adjacent to the 2110–2155 MHz 

and 2175–2180 MHz bands that have 

already been designated for AWS, an 

AWS designation for this band will 

create 70 MHz of contiguous spectrum 

that will promote the rapid introduction 

of new technologies and service 

offerings, and will foster the use of the 

highest potential spectrum. 

Furthermore, designation of the 2155–

2175 MHz band for AWS use is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

previous decisions to designate 

spectrum for AWS on a primary basis to 

support the types of high powered 

mobile applications associated with 

AWS and Broadband PCS expansion. In 

addition, as proposed, the Commission