This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

69919 

Vol. 70, No. 222 

Friday, November 18, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–144620–04] 

RIN 1545–BD70 

Partner’s Distributive Share 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The proposed regulations 

provide rules for testing the 

substantiality of an allocation under 

section 704(b) where the partners are 

look-through entities or members of a 

consolidated group, provide additional 

guidance on the effect of other 

provisions, such as section 482, upon 

the tax treatment of a partner with 

respect to the partner’s distributive 

share under section 704(b), and revise 

the existing rules for determining the 

partners’ interests in a partnership. The 

proposed regulations affect partnerships 

and their partners. This document also 

provides notice of a public hearing on 

these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

must be received by January 25, 2006. 

Outlines of topics to be discussed at the 

public hearing scheduled for February 

15, 2006, at 10 a.m., must be received 

by January 25, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–144620–04), room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–144620–04), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC, or sent 

electronically, via the IRS internet site 

at http://www.irs.gov/regs or via the 

Federal eRule making Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–144620– 

04). The public hearing will be held in 

the Auditorium, Internal Revenue 

Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Timothy J. Leska, (202) 622–3050; 

concerning submissions and the hearing 

LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 622–7180 (not 

toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Subchapter K is intended to permit 

taxpayers to conduct joint business 

activities through a flexible economic 

arrangement without incurring an 

entity-level tax. To achieve this goal of 

a flexible economic arrangement, 

partners are generally permitted to 

decide among themselves how a 

partnership’s items will be allocated. 

Section 704(a) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (Code) provides that a partner’s 

distributive share of income, gain, loss, 

deduction, or credit shall, except as 

otherwise provided, be determined by 

the partnership agreement. 

Section 704(b) places a significant 

limitation on the general flexibility of 

section 704(a). Specifically, section 

704(b) provides that a partner’s 

distributive share of income, gain, loss, 

deduction, or credit (or item thereof) 

shall be determined in accordance with 

the partner’s interest in the partnership 

(determined by taking into account all 

facts and circumstances) if the 

allocation to a partner under the 

partnership agreement of income, gain, 

loss, deduction, or credit (or item 

thereof) does not have substantial 

economic effect. Thus, the statute 

provides that partnership allocations 

either must have substantial economic 

effect or must be in accordance with the 

partner’s interest in the partnership. 

Section 1.704–1(b)(2)(i) provides that 

the determination of whether an 

allocation of income, gain, loss, or 

deduction to a partner has substantial 

economic effect involves a two-part 

analysis. First, the allocation must have 

economic effect within the meaning of 

§ 1.704–1(b)(2)(ii). Second, the 

economic effect of the allocation must 

be substantial within the meaning of 

§ 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii). 

For an allocation to have economic 

effect, it must be consistent with the 

underlying economic arrangement of the 

partners. This means that, in the event 

that there is an economic benefit or 

burden that corresponds to the 

allocation, the partner to whom the 

allocation is made must receive such 

economic benefit or bear such economic 

burden. § 1.704–1(b)(2)(ii)(a). Under 

§ 1.704–1(b)(2)(ii)(b), an allocation of 

income, gain, loss, or deduction (or item 

thereof) to a partner generally has 

economic effect if, and only if, 

throughout the full term of the 

partnership, the partnership agreement 

provides: (1) For the determination and 

maintenance of the partners’ capital 

accounts in accordance with § 1.704– 

1(b)(2)(iv); (2) for liquidating 

distributions to the partners to be made 

in accordance with the positive capital 

account balances of the partners; and (3) 

for each partner to be unconditionally 

obligated to restore the deficit balance 

in the partner’s capital account 

following the liquidation of the 

partner’s partnership interest. In lieu of 

satisfying the third requirement, the 

partnership may satisfy the qualified 

income offset rules set forth in § 1.704– 

1(b)(2)(ii)(d). An allocation also may be 

deemed to have economic effect if it 

satisfies the economic effect equivalence 

rules of § 1.704–1(b)(2)(ii)(i). 

Section 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii)(a) provides 

as a general rule that the economic 

effect of an allocation (or allocations) is 

substantial if there is a reasonable 

possibility that the allocation (or 

allocations) will affect substantially the 

dollar amounts to be received by the 

partners from the partnership, 

independent of tax consequences. 

Notwithstanding the previous sentence, 

the economic effect of the allocation (or 

allocations) is not substantial if, at the 

time the allocation (or allocations) 

becomes part of the partnership 

agreement, (1) the after-tax economic 

consequences of at least one partner 

may, in present value terms, be 

enhanced compared to such 

consequences if the allocation (or 

allocations) were not contained in the 

partnership agreement, and (2) there is 

a strong likelihood that the after-tax 

economic consequences of no partner 

will, in present value terms, be 

substantially diminished compared to 

such consequences if the allocation (or 

allocations) were not contained in the 

partnership agreement. In determining 

the after-tax economic benefit or 

detriment to a partner, tax consequences 

that result from the interaction of the 

allocation with such partner’s tax 

69920 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

attributes that are unrelated to the 

partnership will be taken into account. 

If the partnership agreement provides 

for an allocation of income, gain, loss, 

deduction or credit to a partner that 

does not have substantial economic 

effect, then the partner’s distributive 

share of that item is determined in 

accordance with the partner’s interest in 

the partnership. References in section 

704(b) or § 1.704–1 to a partner’s 

interest in the partnership, or to the 

partners’ interests in the partnership, 

signify the manner in which the 

partners have agreed to share the 

economic benefit or burden (if any) 

corresponding to the income, gain, loss, 

deduction, or credit (or item thereof) 

that is allocated, taking into account all 

facts and circumstances relating to the 

economic arrangement of the partners. 

Section 1.704–1(b)(3)(i) provides that 

all partners’ interests are presumed to be 

equal (determined on a per capita basis). 

However, this presumption may be 

rebutted by the taxpayer or the IRS by 

establishing facts and circumstances 

that show that the partners’ interests in 

the partnership are otherwise. 

Section 1.704–1(b)(1)(iii) provides 

that an allocation that is respected 

under section 704(b) nevertheless may 

be reallocated under other provisions, 

such as section 482, section 704(e)(2), 

section 706(d) (and related assignment 

of income principles), and § 1.751–

1(b)(2)(ii). 

On April 21, 2004, temporary 

regulations (TD 9121) relating to the 

proper allocation of partnership 

expenditures for foreign taxes were 

published in the Federal Register (69 

FR 21405). In the preamble to those 

regulations, the IRS and the Treasury 

Department indicated a concern that 

some partnerships are taking the 

position that, in determining if the 

economic effect of a partnership 

allocation is substantial, they need not 

consider the tax consequences to an 

owner of the partner that result from the 

allocation. This position is inconsistent 

with the policies underlying the 

substantial economic effect rules, 

because it would allow a partnership to 

make tax-advantaged allocations if the 

tax advantages of the allocations accrue 

to an owner of a partner, rather than to 

the partner itself. 

Explanation of Provisions 

These proposed regulations provide 

that the interaction of a partnership 

allocation with the tax attributes of 

owners of look-through entities must be 

taken into account when testing the 

substantiality of the allocation to a 

partner that is a look-through entity. For 

this purpose, look-through entities 

include partnerships, S corporations, 

trusts, certain controlled foreign 

corporations, and entities that are 

disregarded for federal tax purposes, 

such as qualified subchapter S 

subsidiaries under section 1361(b)(3), 

entities that are disregarded under 

§§ 301.7701–1 through 301.7701–3 of 

the Procedure and Administration 

Regulations, or qualified real estate 

investment trusts (REIT) subsidiaries 

within the meaning of section 856(i)(2). 

In general, look-through entities are 

entities that flow certain tax 

consequences through to their owners. 

Although regulated investment 

companies (RICs) and REITs have 

certain flow-through characteristics, the 

regulations do not include them in the 

list of look-through entities, because the 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

believe that the burdens of a rule 

requiring taxpayers to look through 

these entities in determining the 

substantiality of partnership allocations 

generally would outweigh the benefits 

of such a rule. However, if necessary, 

RICs and REITs or other look-through 

entities may be added to the list of lookthrough entities in future guidance. 

Comments are requested regarding the 

treatment of controlled foreign 

corporations as look-through partners 

for purposes of § 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii)(a)(2) 

of these proposed regulations. 

Specifically, comments are requested 

concerning whether the rule should be 

limited to those situations in which the 

controlled foreign corporation owns 

greater than a threshold minimum 

percentage interest in the partnership, 

or only by taking into account the tax 

attributes of those U.S. shareholders of 

the controlled foreign corporation 

owning above a threshold percentage of 

the stock of the controlled foreign 

corporation. 

The regulations also provide that the 

interaction of a partnership allocation 

with the tax attributes of the 

consolidated group must be taken into 

account when testing the substantiality 

of the allocation to a partner that is a 

member of a consolidated group. A 

member of a consolidated group is a 

member of a group filing (or required to 

file) consolidated returns for the tax 

year. See § 1.1502–1(h). 

The proposed regulations clarify that 

for purposes of § 1.704–1(b)(2)(iii)(a)(1), 

the after-tax economic consequences of 

a partner resulting from an allocation or 

allocations must be compared to the 

after-tax economic consequences to that 

partner if the allocation or allocations 

were made in accordance with the 

partners’ interests in the partnership. 

The proposed regulations also remove 

the per capita presumption in § 1.704–

1(b)(3)(i), which reaches the correct 

result in very few cases. Finally, the 

regulations include an example 

illustrating a fact pattern to which, apart 

from the application of section 704(b), 

other sections may apply. 

Proposed Effective Date 

These regulations are generally 

proposed to apply for partnership 

taxable years beginning on or after the 

date on which final regulations are 

published in the Federal Register. No 

inference is intended as to the tax 

consequences of partnership allocations 

made in taxable years beginning before 

the effective date of these regulations. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking 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, and because the 

regulation does not impose a collection 

of information on small entities, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 

section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice 

of proposed rulemaking will be 

submitted to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for comment on its 

impact on small business. 

Comments and Public Hearing 

Before these proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

written (a signed original and eight (8) 

copies) or electronic comments that are 

submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS 

and Treasury Department request 

comments on the clarity of the proposed 

rules and how they can be made easier 

to understand. All comments will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying. 

A public hearing has been scheduled 

for February 15, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the 

Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. Because of access 

restrictions, visitors will not be 

admitted beyond the immediate 

entrance area more than 30 minutes 

before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name on 

the building access list to attend the 

hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT portion of this 

preamble. 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. Persons who wish 

to present oral comments must submit 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69921 

written or electronic comments by 

January 25, 2006, and an outline of the 

topics to be discussed and the time to 

be devoted to each topic (a signed 

original and eight (8) copies) by January 

25, 2006. A period of 10 minutes will 

be allotted to each person for making 

comments. An agenda showing the 

scheduling of the speakers will be 

prepared after the deadline for receiving 

outlines has passed. Copies of the 

agenda will be available free of charge 

at the hearing. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of this regulation 

is Timothy J. Leska, Office of the 

Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs 

& Special Industries). However, other 

personnel from the IRS and Treasury 

Department participated in its 

development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 2. Section 1.704–1 is amended as 

follows: 

1. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(a) is amended 

by adding a sentence at the end of the 

paragraph. 

2. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is amended by 

revising the first three sentences and 

adding a new fourth sentence. 

3. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a) is 

redesignated as paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(a)(1) and revised. 

4. A new paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a)(2) is 

added. 

5. The last two sentences of paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) are removed. 

6. Paragraph (b)(5) Example 29 and 

Example 30 are added. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 1.704–1 Partner’s distributive share. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Effective dates. (a)* * * 

Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a)(2) and paragraph 

(b)(5) Example 30 of this section apply 

to taxable years beginning on or after the 

date on which final regulations are 

published in the Federal Register. 

(iii) Effect of other sections. The 

determination of a partner’s distributive 

share of income, gain, loss, deduction, 

or credit (or item thereof) under section 

704(b) and this paragraph (b) is not 

conclusive as to the tax treatment of a 

partner with respect to such distributive 

share. For example, an allocation of loss 

or deduction to a partner that is 

respected under section 704(b) and this 

paragraph (b) may not be deductible by 

such partner if the partner lacks the 

requisite motive for economic gain (see, 

e.g., Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 

F.2d 734 (2d. Cir. 1966)), or may be 

disallowed for that taxable year (and 

held in suspense) if the limitations of 

section 465 or section 704(d) are 

applicable. Similarly, an allocation that 

is respected under section 704(b) and 

this paragraph (b) nevertheless may be 

reallocated under other provisions, such 

as section 482, section 704(e)(2), section 

706(d) (and related assignment of 

income principles), and § 1.751–

1(b)(2)(ii). See paragraph (b)(5) Example 

29 of this section. * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Substantiality—(a) In general—(1) 

Fundamental principles. Except as 

otherwise provided in this paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii), the economic effect of an 

allocation (or allocations) is substantial 

if there is a reasonable possibility that 

the allocation (or allocations) will affect 

substantially the dollar amounts to be 

received by the partners from the 

partnership, independent of tax 

consequences. Notwithstanding the 

preceding sentence, the economic effect 

of an allocation (or allocations) is not 

substantial if, at the time the allocation 

(or allocations) becomes part of the 

partnership agreement, the after-tax 

economic consequences of at least one 

partner may, in present value terms, be 

enhanced compared to such 

consequences if the allocation (or 

allocations) were not contained in the 

partnership agreement (and, thus, the 

allocation or allocations were allocated 

among the partners in accordance with 

the partners’ interests in the 

partnership), and there is a strong 

likelihood that the after-tax economic 

consequences of no partner will, in 

present value terms, be substantially 

diminished compared to such 

consequences if the allocation (or 

allocations) were not contained in the 

partnership agreement (and, thus, the 

allocation or allocations were allocated 

among the partners in accordance with 

the partners’ interests in the 

partnership). In determining the aftertax economic benefit or detriment to a 

partner, tax consequences that result 

from the interaction of the allocation 

with such partner’s tax attributes that 

are unrelated to the partnership will be 

taken into account. See paragraph (b)(5) 

Examples 5 and 9 of this section. The 

economic effect of an allocation is not 

substantial in the two situations 

described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(b) and 

(c) of this section. However, even if an 

allocation is not described therein, its 

economic effect may be insubstantial 

under the general rules stated in this 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a). References in 

this paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to allocations 

include capital account adjustments 

made pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(k) 

of this section. 

(2) Partners that are look-through 

entities or members of a consolidated 

group—(i) Rule. For purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii), in determining the 

after-tax economic benefit or detriment 

to any partner that is a look-through 

entity, the tax consequences that result 

from the interaction of the allocation 

with the tax attributes of any person that 

owns an interest in such a partner, 

whether directly or indirectly through 

one or more look-through entities, must 

be taken into account, and, in 

determining the after-tax economic 

benefit or detriment to any partner that 

is a member of a consolidated group 

(within the meaning of § 1.1502–1(h)), 

the tax consequences that result from 

the interaction of the allocation with the 

tax attributes of the consolidated group 

and with the tax attributes of another 

member with respect to a separate 

return year must be taken into account. 

See paragraph (b)(5) Example 30 of this 

section. 

(ii) Definition. For purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a)(2), a lookthrough entity means—

(A) A partnership; 

(B) A subchapter S corporation; 

(C) A trust; 

(D) An entity that is disregarded for 

Federal tax purposes, such as a qualified 

subchapter S subsidiary under section 

1361(b)(3), an entity that is disregarded 

as an entity separate from its owner 

under §§ 301.7701–1 through 301.7701–

3 of this chapter, or a qualified REIT 

subsidiary within the meaning of 

section 856(i)(2). 

(E) A controlled foreign corporation, 

as defined in section 957(a), but only 

with respect to allocations of items of 

income, gain, loss, or deduction that 

enter into the corporation’s computation 

of subpart F income or would enter into 

that computation if such items were 

allocated to the corporation 

(collectively, subpart F items). For 

purposes of this paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(a)(2)(ii)(E), the rule in 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a)(2)(i) of this 

section shall apply only by taking into 

account the tax attributes of a person 

that is a United States shareholder of the 

controlled foreign corporation the 

69922 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

amount of whose inclusions of gross 

income under section 951(a) are affected 

by the partnership’s allocations of 

subpart F items (or would be affected if 

such items were allocated to the 

corporation). 

* * * * * 

(5) Examples. * * * 

Example 29. (i) B, a domestic corporation, 

and C, a controlled foreign corporation, form 

BC, a partnership organized under the laws 

of country X. B and C each contribute 50 

percent of the capital of BC. B and C are 

wholly-owned subsidiaries of A, a domestic 

corporation. Substantially all of BC’s income 

would not be subpart F income if earned 

directly by C. The BC partnership agreement 

provides that, for the first fifteen years, BC’s 

gross income will be allocated 10 percent to 

B and 90 percent to C, and BC’s deductions 

and losses will be allocated 90 percent to B 

and 10 percent to C. The partnership 

agreement also provides that, after the initial 

fifteen year period, BC’s gross income will be 

allocated 90 percent to B and 10 percent to 

C, and BC’s deductions and losses will be 

allocated 10 percent to B and 90 percent to 

C. 

(ii) Apart from the application of section 

704(b), the Commissioner may reallocate or 

otherwise not respect the allocations under 

other sections. See paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this 

section. For example, BC’s allocations of 

gross income, deductions, and losses may be 

evaluated and reallocated (or not respected), 

as appropriate, if it is determined that the 

allocations result in the evasion of tax or do 

not clearly reflect income under section 482. 

Example 30. PRS is a partnership with 

three partners, A, B, and C. A is a corporation 

that is a member of a consolidated group 

within the meaning of § 1.1502–1(h). B is a 

subchapter S corporation that is whollyowned by D, an individual. C is a partnership 

with two partners, E, an individual, and F, 

a corporation that is member of a 

consolidated group within the meaning of 

§ 1.1502–1(h). For purposes of paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section, in determining the 

after-tax economic benefit or detriment of an 

allocation to A, the tax consequences that 

result from the interaction of the allocation 

to A with the tax attributes of the 

consolidated group in which A is a member 

must be taken into account. In determining 

the after-tax economic benefit or detriment of 

an allocation to B, the tax consequences that 

result from the interaction of the allocation 

with the tax attributes of D must be taken 

into account. In determining the after-tax 

economic benefit or detriment of an 

allocation to C, the tax consequences that 

result from the interaction of the allocation 

with the tax attributes of E and the 

consolidated group in which F is a member 

must be taken into account. 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 05–22281 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–7998–7] 

Massachusetts: Extension of Interim 

Authorization of State Hazardous 

Waste Management Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

extend the expiration date from January 

1, 2006 to January 1, 2011 for the 

interim authorization under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, of the Massachusetts program for 

regulating Cathode Ray Tubes (‘‘CRTs’’). 

Massachusetts was granted interim 

authorization to assume the 

responsibility under the Toxicity 

Characteristics Rule (‘‘TC Rule’’) for 

regulating CRTs on November 15, 2000, 

with an expiration date of January 1, 

2003. This expiration date was 

subsequently extended until January 1, 

2006. As this interim authorization is 

soon due to expire, an extension is 

needed for the reasons explained 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

publishing a rule to authorize the 

extension without a prior proposal 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

extension during the comment period, 

the decision to extend the interim 

authorization will take effect. If we get 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register withdrawing this rule before it 

takes effect and this separate document 

in this proposed rules section of this 

Federal Register will serve as the 

proposal to authorize the changes. We 

will then respond to public comments 

in a later final rule based on this 

proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

December 19, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Send any written comments 

to Robin Biscaia, EPA New England, 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023; telephone: 

(617) 918–1642. Documents related to 

EPA’s previous decision to grant interim 

authorization (regarding regulation of 

CRTs) and the materials which EPA 

used in now considering the extension 

(the ‘‘Administrative Record’’) are 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours at the 

following locations: Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Business Compliance 

Division, One Winter Street—8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108, business hours: 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., telephone: (617) 556–

1096; or EPA New England Library, One 

Congress Street—11th Floor, Boston, 

MA 02114–2023, business hours: 10 

a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through 

Thursday, telephone: (617) 918–1990. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier; please follow the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the immediate final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, 

Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA 

New England, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–

2023, telephone: (617) 918–1642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

immediate final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register. 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 05–22892 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AG23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for 12 Species of Hawaiian 

Picture-Wings 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), announce the reopening 

of the comment period on the proposal 

to list 12 species of Hawaiian picturewings as endangered to allow peer 

reviewers and all interested parties 

another opportunity to submit 

comments on the rule.