A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 22, 1999 (64 FR 63755). That action proposed to require modifications of the engine turbine cooling air panel at the flight engineer/second officer's console, pilot's caution and warning light panel on the main instrument panel, and monitoring system for the engine turbine air temperature.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

One commenter supports the proposal.

Two commenters support the intent of the proposed AD, but request that the compliance time for the proposed modification be extended from 24 months, as specified in the proposal, to 36 months. One of the commenters states that in-service statistics indicate that the rate at which the unsafe condition (i.e., fire burn through from the high speed gear box) arises occurs on the order of 10− 7 per airplane flying hour. The other commenter contends that, because of the low risk of the identified unsafe condition occuring and the average airplane usage, safety would not be compromised by extending the compliance time.

The FAA does not concur with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addresssing the subject unsafe condition, but the practical aspect of accomplishing the work necessary to perform the modifications (estimated at 24 work hours in the proposal). In consideration of these items, the FAA has determined that 24 months represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein the modfications can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of affected operators, and an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.

In the proposed rule, the FAA inadvertently estimated the cost for accomplishing the modifications as $7,790 per airplane, or $911,430 for the affected fleet. Those costs actually reflect the estimated cost of workshours for the airplane but only the parts costs for one engine, rather than for three engines. Additionally, the proposed rule contained a typographical error on the estimated cost of the parts. Instead of $6,350, the correct estimate is $6,320 per engine. The FAA has, therefore, revised this final rule to reflect the correct estimated costs of $2,386,800, or $20,400 per airplane.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 235 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 117 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8 work hours per engine, or 24 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modifications. The FAA estimates that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $6,320 per engine, or $18,960 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,386,800, or $20,400 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received a report of an accident on a Fairchild Aircraft SA226/227 series airplane where the main landing gear (MLG) failed due to drag brace assembly cracks. Random inspections of the Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series airplane fleet revealed nine other instances of cracks in the MLG drag brace assemblies. The affected airplanes incorporate one of the following MLG assemblies:

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? Continued airplane operation with cracks in the MLG drag brace assembly could lead to MLG failure and result in loss of control of the airplane during takeoff or landing operations.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Fairchild has issued Service Bulletin 226-32-068 and Service Bulletin 227-32-043, both Issued: June 23, 2000.

What are the provisions of these service bulletins? These service bulletins include the following:

What has FAA decided? After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available information related to the incidents described above, including the relevant service information, FAA has determined that:

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to repetitively inspect the MLG drag brace assembly (consists of both brace and links) for cracks, and requires you to replace or rework any cracked MLG drag brace assembly.

Will I have the opportunity to comment prior to the issuance of the rule? Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in MLG failure and result in loss of control of the airplane during takeoff or landing operations, FAA finds that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

How do I comment on this AD? Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, we invite your comments on the rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date specified above. We may amend this rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the AD I should pay attention to? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this AD.

The FAA is reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clearer, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2000-CE-41-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

Does this AD impact relations between Federal and State governments? These regulations will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket (otherwise, an evaluation is not required). A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket.

The FAA has received a report of cracking of the inboard lug on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount on the number 3 engine pylon on a Boeing Model 747-200B series airplane powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7Q series engines. The affected airplane had accumulated 13,941 flight cycles and 73,356 flight hours. The lug was cracked completely through the cross-section. The cracking is thought to be due to corrosion and fatigue. This condition, if not corrected, could result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2200, dated July 7, 2000. Among other actions, the service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual inspections for bushing migration, corrosion, or cracking; and a physical measurement inspection for bushing migration; of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount. If light corrosion or any bushing migration is found, the corrective action includes interim rework to remove corrosion and restore the finish of the fitting. If cracking or moderate-to-heavy corrosion is found, the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for rework instructions. The service bulletin also describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount, which, if accomplished, extend the repetitive inspection interval for the detailed visual inspections.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect and correct bushing migration, corrosion, or cracking of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount, which could result in separation of the engine from the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

This is considered to be interim action. The FAA is currently considering requiring the repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount, which are described in the service bulletin. Accomplishment of these ultrasonic inspections would extend the repetitive interval for the detailed visual and physical measurement inspections required by this AD. The FAA is also considering requiring the rework specified in Part 5 of the service bulletin for airplanes other than those required to do the Part 5 rework in accordance with this AD. However, the planned compliance time for these actions is sufficiently long so that notice and opportunity for prior public comment will be practicable.

As described previously, the service bulletin recommends accomplishment of the ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount within 9 months after accomplishment of the initial detailed visual inspection. This AD does not require these ultrasonic inspections. However, paragraph (c) of this AD provides the repetitive ultrasonic inspections as an option that extends the repetitive interval for the detailed visual and physical measurement inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD.

Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for certain rework instructions, this AD requires such rework to be done in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-270-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

The Rule was issued by the Commission in 1979 (44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979)) in response to a directive in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.1 The Rule covers eight categories of major household appliances: Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, water heaters (this category includes storage-type water heaters, gas-fired instantaneous water heaters, and heat pump water heaters), room air conditioners, furnaces (this category includes boilers), and central air conditioners (this category includes heat pumps). The Rule also covers pool heaters (59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994)), and contains requirements that pertain to fluorescent lamp ballasts (54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989)), certain plumbing products (58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993)), and certain lighting products (59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994)).

The Rule requires manufacturers of all covered appliances and pool heaters to disclose specific energy consumption or efficiency information (derived from the DOE test procedures) at the point of sale in the form of an “EnergyGuide” label and in catalogs. It also requires manufacturers of furnaces, boilers central air conditioners, and heat pumps either to provide fact sheets showing additional cost information, or to be listed in an industry directory showing the cost information for their products. The Rule requires that manufacturers include, on labels and fact sheets, an energy consumption or efficiency figure and a “range of comparability” scale. This scale shows the highest and lowest energy consumption or efficiencies for all comparable appliance models so consumers can compare the energy consumption or efficiency of other models (perhaps competing brands) similar to the labeled model. The Rule requires that manufacturers also include, on labels for some products, a secondary energy usage disclosure in the form of an estimated annual operating cost based on a specified DOE national average cost for the fuel the appliance uses.

Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires manufacturers, after filing an initial report, to report annually (by specified dates for each product type) 2 the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived from tests performed pursuant to the DOE test procedures. Because manufacturers regularly add new models to their lines, improve existing models, and drop others, the data base from which the ranges of comparability are calculated is constantly changing. Under Section 305.10 of the Rule, to keep the required information on labels consistent with these changes, the Commission publishes new ranges (but not more often than annually) if an analysis of the new information indicates that the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than 15%. Otherwise, the Commission publishes a statement that the prior ranges remain in effect for the next year.

The annual submissions of data for room air conditioners, water heaters (including storage-type, gas-fired instantaneous, and heat pump water heaters), furnaces, boilers, and pool heaters have been made and have been analyzed by the Commission.

The data submissions for heat pump water heaters show significant changes in both the high and low ends of the ranges of comparability for these products. Therefore, the Commission is publishing new ranges for use in required disclosures (including labeling) for heat pump water heaters beginning November 30, 2000. In addition, beginning November 30, 2000, manufacturers of heat pump water heaters must base the disclosures of estimated annual operating cost required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for these products on the 2000 Representative Average Unit Cost of Energy for electricity (8.03 cents per kiloWatt-hour) that was published by DOE on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5860), and by the Commission on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20352).

The ranges of comparability for room air conditioners, storage-type water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, furnaces, boilers, and pool heaters have not changed by more than 15% from the current ranges for these products. Therefore, the current ranges for these products will remain in effect until further notice.3

This means that manufacturers of storage-type water heaters, furnaces, and boilers must continue to use the ranges that were published on September 23, 1994, and that manufacturers of storage-type water heaters must continue to base the disclosures of estimated annual operating cost required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for these products on the 1994 Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for electricity (8.41 cents per kiloWatt-hour), natural gas (60.4 cents per therm), propane (98 cents per gallon), and/or heating oil ($1.05 per gallon) that were published by DOE on December 29, 1993 (58 FR 68901), and by the Commission on February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5699).

Manufacturers of pool heaters must continue to use the ranges that were published on August 21, 1995. Manufacturers of room air conditioners must continue to use the corrected ranges for room air conditioners that were published on November 13, 1995. Manufacturers of pool heaters and room air conditioners must continue to base the disclosures of estimated annual operating required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for these products on the 1995 Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for electricity (8.67 cents per kiloWatt-hour), natural gas (63 cents per therm), propane (98.5 cents per gallon), and/or heating oil ($1.008 per gallon) that were published by DOE on January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1773), and by the Commission on February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9295).

Manufacturers of gas-fired instantaneous water heaters must continue to use the ranges of comparability that were published on December 20, 1999. They must continue to base the disclosures of estimated annual operating cost required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for these products on the 1999 Representative Average Unit Cost for natural gas (68.8 cents per therm) and propane (77 cents per gallon) that were published by DOE on January 5, 1999 (64 FR 487) and by the Commission on February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7783).

For up-to-date tables showing current range and cost information for all covered appliances, see the Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule web page at www.ftc.gov/appliances.

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proceeding because the amendments do not impose any new obligations on entities regulated by the Appliance Labeling Rule. Thus, the amendments will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605. The Commission has concluded, therefore, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary, and certifies, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the amendments announced today will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Rule was issued by the Commission in 1979 (44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979)) in response to a directive in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”).1 The Rule covers eight categories of major household appliances: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, water heaters (this category includes storage-type water heaters, gas-fired instantaneous water heaters, and heat pump water heaters), room air conditioners, furnaces (this category includes boilers), and central air conditioners (this category includes heat pumps). The Rule also covers pool heaters (59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994)), and contains requirements that pertain to fluorescent lamp ballasts (54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989)), certain plumbing products (58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993)), and certain lighting products (59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994)).

The Rule requires manufacturers of all covered appliances and pool heaters to disclose specific energy consumption or efficiency information (derived from test procedures promulgated by DOE) at the point of sale in the form of an “EnergyGuide” label and in catalogs. It also requires manufacturers of furnaces, boilers central air conditioners, and heat pumps either to provide fact sheets showing additional cost information, or to be listed in an industry directory showing the cost information for their products. The Rule requires that manufacturers include, on labels and fact sheets, an energy consumption or efficiency figure and a “range of comparability” scale. This scale shows the highest and lowest energy consumption or efficiencies for all comparable appliance models so consumers can compare the energy consumption or efficiency of other models (perhaps competing brands) similar to the labeled model. The Rule requires that the manufacturers also include, on labels for some products, a secondary energy usage disclosure in the form of an estimated annual operating cost based on a specified DOE national average cost for the fuel the appliance uses.

Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires manufacturers, after filing an initial report, to report annually (by specified dates for each product type) 2 the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived from tests performed pursuant to the DOE test procedures. Because manufacturers regularly add new models to their lines, improve existing models, and drop others, the data base from which the ranges of comparability are calculated is constantly changing. Under Section 305.10 of the Rule, to keep the required information on labels consistent with these changes, the Commission publishes new ranges (but not more often than annually) if an analysis of the new information indicates that the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than 15%. Otherwise, the Commission publishes a statement that the prior ranges remain in effect for the next year.

The annual submissions of data for dishwashers, central air conditioners, and heat pumps have been made and have been analyzed by the Commission.

The ranges of comparability for central air conditioners and heat pumps have not changed by more than 15% from the current ranges for these products. Therefore, the current ranges for these products, which were published on September 16, 1996 (61 FR 48620), will remain in effect until further notice.

The data submissions for dishwashers show no change in the high or low ends of the range of comparability scale for standard models, no change in the low end of the range scale for compact models, but a significant change in the high end of the compact scale (reflecting the fact that currently only one model of compact dishwasher is being offered).3 Rather than require new ranges for the vast majority of dishwashers (the standard category) when only the high end of the compact range has changed significantly, the Commission has decided to publish new ranges of comparability only for compact dishwashers. These new ranges of comparability supersede the current ranges for compact-sized dishwashers, which were published on December 20, 1999.4 As of the effective date of these new ranges, manufacturers of compact-sized dishwashers must base the disclosure of estimated annual operating cost required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for compact-sized dishwashers on the 2000 Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for electricity (8.03 cents per kilo Watt-hour) and natural gas (68.8 cents per therm) that were published by DOE on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5860), and by the Commission on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20354).

The effective date of the Federal Register Notice that established the current ranges of comparability for compact-sized dishwashers was March 22, 2000. Because section 326(c) of EPCA states that the Commission cannot require that labels be changed more often than annually to reflect changes in the ranges of comparability,5 the effective date of today's revised ranges of comparability for compact-sized dishwashers will therefore be March 22, 2001.

The ranges of comparability for standard-sized dishwashers will remain in effect until further notice. This means that manufacturers of standard-sized dishwashers must continue to use the ranges of comparability that were published on August 25, 1997 (62 FR 44890), and must continue to base the disclosures of estimated annual operating cost required at the bottom of EnergyGuides for these products on the 1997 Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for electricity (8.31 cents per kiloWatt-hour) and natural gas (61.2 cents per therm) that were published by DOE on November 18, 1996 (61 FR 58679), and by the Commission on February 5, 1997 (62 FR 5316).

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission revises appendix C1 of part 305 by publishing the following ranges of comparability for use in required disclosures (including labeling) for compact-size dishwashers beginning March 22, 2001, and amends the cost calculation formulas in appendices H and I to part 305 that manufacturers of central air conditioners and heat pumps must include on fact sheets and in directories, effective November 30, 2000.

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proceeding because the amendments do not impose any new obligations on entities regulated by the Appliance Labeling Rule. Thus, the amendments will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605. The Commission has concluded, therefore, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary, and certifies, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the amendments announced today will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission has reorganized the Directorate for Laboratory Sciences into three divisions, the Mechanical Engineering Division, the Electrical Engineering Division, and the Chemical Division. Section 1000.31 is being revised to reflect this and to make various editorial revisions.

Since this rule relates solely to internal agency management, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) notice and other public procedures are not required and it is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Further, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and, thus, is exempt from the provisions of the Act.

In FR Doc. 00-14214, appearing on page 35823 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, June 6, 2000, the following correction is made:

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not constitute ‘significant regulatory action’. Analysis of the rule indicates that it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense imposes no information requirements beyond the Department of Defense and that the information collected within the Department of Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the Privacy Act, and 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

On October 31, 1996, the President of the United States signed EO 13022 transferring to the DOI responsibility for jurisdiction and control, to include civil administration, of the Midway Islands, Hawaiian group and their territorial waters. Subsequent to this transfer, the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations providing, in part, for the civil administration of Midway Islands. These regulations are found at 50 CFR 38, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. This rule is being published by the Department of the Navy for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). It has been determined that invitation of public comment on this amendment would be impracticable and unnecessary, and it is therefore not required under the public rulemaking provisions of 32 CFR Part 336 or Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5720.45. It has been determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will have little or no direct effect on States or local governments.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR Part 1320).

This amended rule provides updated information pursuant changes made to Department of Defense regulation, DOD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 10. This amendment is being published by the Department of the Navy for guidance and interest of the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). It has been determined that invitation of public comment on this amendment would be impracticable and unnecessary, and it is therefore not required under the public rulemaking provisions of 32 CFR Part 336 or Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5720.45. Interested persons, however, are invited to comment in writing on this amendment. All written comments will be considered in making subsequent amendments or revisions of 32 CFR 762, or the instructions on which it is based. Changes may be initiated on the basis of comments received. Written comments should be addressed to Lieutenant Commander James L. Roth, JAGC, USN, Head, Regulations and Legislation, FOIA/PA Branch, Administrative Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General (Code 13), 1322 Patterson Ave SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066. It has been determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will have little or no direct effect on States or local governments.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

This rule does not impose collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR Part 1320).

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.

On November 15, 1999, the Governor of Texas submitted rule revisions to the 30 TAC, Chapter 117, “Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds,” as a revision to the SIP for certain source categories operating in certain ozone nonattainment areas. On March 3, 2000, 65 FR 11468, EPA had conditionally approved the Texas NOX rule Chapter 117 as it existed in 1998, as a revision to the Texas SIP as meeting the RACT requirements for the H/GA and B/PA ozone nonattainment areas for the certain source categories. We based our conditional approval on a written commitment received from the TNRCC. In a July 19, 1999, letter, Texas committed that they would address our concerns about the potential for “paper credits” by November 15, 1999. On November 15, 1999, Texas submitted to us another SIP revision meeting their commitment. The November 15, 1999, revision addresses our concerns about the potential for “paper credits.” For detailed information on our concern, see section 3 of this document.

In this action, we are fully approving the Texas NOX rules, as they existed in 1998, as RACT in the H/GA and B/PA ozone nonattainment areas for the following source categories: Utility boilers, steam generators, auxiliary steam boilers, and gas turbines used to generate electricity in H/GA and B/PA areas; commercial, institutional, or industrial boiler (non-utility boiler) and process heaters with a maximum rated capacity of 40 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour or greater, stationary gas turbines with a megawatt (mW) rating of 1.0 mW or higher; stationery rich burn internal combustion engines of 150 horsepower (hp) or greater in the H/GA area, and stationary internal combustion engines of 300 hp or greater in the B/PA area; and nitric acid manufacturing and adipic acid manufacturing plants.

The November 15, 1999, SIP submittal also included provisions to regulate NOX emissions from lean burn, stationary, reciprocating internal combustion engines operating in the B/PA, H/GA, or D/FW ozone nonattainment areas. We are approving these revisions to section 117.205, concerning control of NOX emissions from lean burn engines, as meeting RACT in the B/PA, H/GA, and D/FW ozone nonattainment areas.

For more information on the SIP revision and EPA's RACT evaluation, please refer to our TSD dated January 2000.

On March 15, 1999, the Governor of Texas submitted rule revisions to the Chapter 117, “Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds,” as a revision to the SIP for the D/FW ozone nonattainment area adding controls for the same source categories listed above for the H/GA and B/PA areas, but for nitric acid manufacturing and adipic acid manufacturing plants. We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP concerning control of NOX emissions in the D/FW area, as meeting RACT for the source categories listed in section 5.

In addition, when we conditionally approved the Texas NOX rules on March 3, 2000, we inadvertently forgot to codify sections 117.305, 117.405, and 117.455 concerning Emissions Specifications; and section 117.419 concerning Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements. Today, we are converting our conditional approval of the Texas NOX rules to a full approval. We are also codifying all of the Texas NOX rules, as they existed in 1998, revised in 1999 by Texas, and approved by us, in this document.

We are not acting on the D/FW ozone attainment plan in this particular action or on any other ozone nonattainment area plan.

The definition of actual daily heat input in 117.570(b)(2), previously allowed for adding one standard deviation to a source's baseline heat input or emission rate to establish the baseline for generating emission credits. Adding one standard deviation to the baseline in the equation stated in 117.570(b)(2) could generate “paper credits.” We understood from Texas that this allowance was an inadvertent oversight and they committed in a July 19, 1999, letter to change the rule and submit it as a SIP revision to our office by November 15, 1999. We conditionally approved the rule based on their commitment. Texas has adequately addressed our concern about potential generation of “paper credits” in its November 15, 1999, submission. Therefore, we are converting our prior conditional approval of the Texas NOX rule to a full approval.

The State added a new source category to its NOX rules—stationary lean burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines. The November 15, 1999, SIP revision sets NOX and Carbon Monoxide (CO)emission specifications, in grams per horse power hour (g/hp-hr), for stationary lean burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines of 150 hp or greater in the H/GA ozone nonattainment area, and stationary lean burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines of 300 hp or greater in the B/PA and D/FW ozone nonattainment areas. See sections 117.205(d) and (e) of this rule. The following table contains a summary of the lean burn engine rule requirements for these sources in the H/GA, B/PA, and D/FW nonattainment areas.

This level of control represents RACT for lean burn engines. We are approving the CO requirements as a strengthening of the Texas SIP under section 110 of the Act. For a comparison of this lean burn emission specification with the lean burn engine emission specifications from some of the other states, please refer to pages 9 and 10 of our TSD dated January 2000.

These revisions will affect NOX emissions from the following source categories: (1) Utility boilers, steam generators, auxiliary steam boilers, and gas turbines used to generate electricity in the D/FW ozone nonattainment area. See section 117.101 of this rule; (2) commercial, institutional, or industrial boilers (non-utility boiler) and process heaters in the D/FW ozone nonattainment area with a maximum rated capacity of 40 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour or greater, and stationary gas turbines in the D/FW area with a megawatt rating of 1.0 mW or higher; (3) stationary rich burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines of 300 hp or greater in the D/FW ozone nonattainment area. See section 117.205(d) of this rule; and (4) stationary lean burn, reciprocating internal combustion engines of 300 hp or greater in the D/FW ozone nonattainment area. See section 117.205(e) of this rule.

There are no existing nitric acid manufacturing and adipic acid manufacturing plants in the D/FW ozone nonattainment area. See the approved Emissions Inventory for the D/FW area.

The revised emission specifications in the Texas NOX rule are consistent with Federal guidelines. The following table contains a summary of the type of affected sources, their corresponding emission limit, and relevant applicability information for these sources in the H/GA, B/PA, and D/FW nonattainment areas.

Nitrogen oxides belong to the group of criteria air pollutants. The NOX are produced from burning fuels, including gasoline and coal. Nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds (VOC) to form ozone or smog, and are also major components of acid rain.

A nonattainment area is a geographic area in which the level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by Federal standards. A single geographic area may have acceptable levels of one criteria air pollutant but unacceptable levels of one or more other criteria air pollutants; thus, a geographic area can be attainment for one criteria pollutant and nonattainment for another criteria pollutant at the same time.

Reasonably Available Control Technology is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source can meet by applying a control technique that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. See 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. This requirement is established by sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act. These sections, taken together, establish the requirements for Texas to submit a NOX RACT regulation for all major stationary sources of NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above. A State may choose to develop its own RACT requirements on a case by case basis, considering the economic and technical circumstances of an individual source.

Section 183(c) of the Act provides that we will issue technical documents which identify alternative controls for stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen which emit, when uncontrolled, 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of this pollutant. These ACT documents are to be subsequently revised and updated by us. The information in the ACT documents is generated from EPA papers, literature sources and contacts, control equipment vendors, engineering firms, and Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. States can use information in the ACT to develop their RACT regulations. The following table contains a list of ACT documents for various source categories of NOX with their corresponding EPA publication numbers.

Section 182(b)(2) requires States, with areas classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, to implement RACT with respect to all major sources of VOCs. Section 182(f) states that, “The plan provisions required under this subpart for major stationary sources of VOCs shall also apply to major stationary sources (as defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the section) of oxides of nitrogen.” This NOX RACT requirement also applies to all major sources in ozone nonattainment areas with higher than moderate nonattainment classifications.

On November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55620), we published a document of proposed rulemaking entitled “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NOX Supplement). The NOX Supplement describes and provides preliminary guidance on the requirements of section 182(f) of the Act. You should refer to the NOX supplement for further information on the NOX requirements. The EPA's mandatory Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules for criteria pollutants appear in 40 CFR part 51, subpart U (59 FR 16710). The EPA's discretionary EIP guidance concerning emission trading appear in the 1994 EIP guidance document (59 FR 16690). In addition, other EPA guidance memoranda, such as those included in the “NOX Policy Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,” (EPA-452/R96-005, March 1996), could provide you with more information about NOX requirements.

Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of RACT rules for major stationary sources of VOC (and NOX) emissions not covered by either a pre or post-enactment control techniques guideline (CTG) document. There were no NOX CTGs issued before enactment and we have not issued a CTG document for any NOX sources since enactment of the Act. However, we published ACT documents for several industrial categories. See section 10 of this document. States can use the information contained in the ACTs to develop their RACT rules. The Texas NOX rules as of 1998 required final installation of the actual NOX controls as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than November 15, 1999, in the H/GA and B/PA ozone nonattainment areas. On November 21, 1994, we conditionally granted an exemption to the D/FW ozone nonattainment area from NOX controls under section 182(f). The D/FW area failed to reach attainment by November 15, 1999, and modeling results indicated that NOX controls would help the area attain the ozone NAAQS. On April 20, 1999, we rescinded our conditional NOX waiver, under section 182(f), for the D/FW area. See 64 FR 19283. The compliance deadline with the NOX RACT requirements for affected sources in the D/FW area is as soon as practicable, but no later than February 15, 2001. EPA generally views two years as an acceptable time frame to implement RACT requirements. The Texas deadline is less than two years. We are of the opinion that the compliance date of February 15, 2001, is practicable compared with the attainment demonstration dates of severe ozone nonattainment areas in the country. We will closely examine and question any attempts to extend the compliance dates beyond the February 15, 2001, date for such NOX sources in the D/FW area in future.

Section 302 of the Act generally defines “major stationary source” as a facility or source of air pollution which emits, when uncontrolled, 100 tpy or more of air pollution. This general definition applies unless another specific provision of the Act explicitly defines major source differently. Therefore, for NOX, a major source is one which emits, when uncontrolled, 100 tpy or more of NOX in marginal and moderate areas. According to section 182(c) of the Act, a major source in a serious nonattainment area is a source that emits, when uncontrolled, 50 tpy or more of NOX.

According to section 182(d) of the Act, a major source in a severe nonattainment area is a source that emits, when uncontrolled, 25 tpy or more of NOX.

The H/GA area is a severe ozone nonattainment area, so the major source size for the H/GA area is 25 tpy or more, when uncontrolled. The B/PA area is a moderate ozone nonattainment area, so the major source size for the B/PA area is 100 tpy or more, when uncontrolled. The D/FW area is a serious ozone nonattainment area, so the major source size for the D/FW area is 50 tpy or more, when uncontrolled.

Section 110 of the Act requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the NAAQS that EPA has established. Under section 109 of the Act, EPA established the NAAQS to protect public health. The NAAQS address six criteria pollutants. These criteria 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 State has a SIP designed to protect air quality. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

When a State wants to incorporate its regulations into the federally enforceable SIP, the State must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process includes a public notice, a public hearing, a public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a State adopts a rule, regulation, or control strategy, the State may submit the adopted provisions to us and request that we include these provisions in the federally enforceable SIP. We must then decide on an appropriate Federal action, provide public notice on this action, and seek additional public comment regarding this action. If we receive adverse comments, we must address them prior to a final action.

Under section 110 of the Act, when we approve all State regulations and supporting information, those State regulations and supporting information become a part of the federally approved SIP. You can find records of these SIP actions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations that we approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date.

A State may enforce State regulations before and after we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP. After we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP, both EPA and the public may also take enforcement action against violators of these regulations.

The rule revisions we are approving today affect the B/PA, H/GA, and D/FW ozone nonattainment areas. We have classified the B/PA area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and includes the following counties: Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange. We have classified the H/GA area as a severe ozone nonattainment area, and includes the following counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller. We have classified the D/FW area as a serious ozone nonattainment area, and includes the following counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant. If you are in one of these counties, you should refer to the Texas NOX rules to determine if and how today's action will affect you.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on October 31, 2000 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by October 2, 2000. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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. This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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.). Because this rule approves 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 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will 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), because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 Act. 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 Act. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) 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.).

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. The 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 action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 31, 2000.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

On March 30, 1987 and on December 15, 1987, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of an amendment to COMAR 10.18.10.03B(3) (currently COMAR 26.11.10.03B(2)) to add a visible emissions standard for blast furnaces constructed on or after January 1, 1977. In particular the revision effects the casthouse building at the “L” Blast Furnace at Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Sparrows Point Plant.

Bethlehem's Steel's “L” Blast Furnace functions to reduce iron ore to usable molten iron for further processing in a basic oxygen furnaces and open hearths. Particulate emissions from the casthouse are controlled by local hoods over the taphole, trough, skimmer and molten liquid transfer points and by a system of trough and runner covers. Whenever a taphole is open, the entire control system will normally be operational except the trough cover, which must be removed for brief periods to allow access for the taphole drill and for the mudgun. Fumes collected from the capture system of hoods and covers are exhausted into the baghouse that is subject to a no visible emission standard. It is estimated that particulate emissions from the casthouse in 1984 were 98 lbs/day.

The State of Maryland's SIP currently contains no measurable opacity limit on the “L” Blast Furnace. This revision affects only visible emissions from blast furnaces constructed on or after January 1, 1977. At the time of the revision, only one facility, Bethlehem Steel Corporation's “L” Blast Furnace Casthouse was effected by the change. The revision is based on 1984-1986 levels of production and effectiveness of control equipment at this facility. The standard is based on 35 separate visible emissions observations of the casthouse building taken during 1984-1986. Many of the observations were made while the “L” Blast Furnace was operating in the range of its original design capacity production rate. The new provision requires that the “L” Blast Furnace Casthouse and any blast furnace built on or after January 1, 1977 meet an opacity standard of 5% except during drilling, oxygen lancing, and plugging of furnace tapholes. During these periods, an opacity standard of 20% must be met.

EPA is approving revisions to the Maryland SIP submitted on March 30, 1987 and December 15, 1987. The revisions to the COMAR 10.18.10 .03B(3) (currently COMAR 26.11.10.03B(2)) consist of an amendment to establish a visible emission standard for blast furnaces constructed on or after January 1, 1977. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 31, 2000 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 2, 2000. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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.). Because this rule approves 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 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will 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), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) 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.).

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 the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action, approving visible emission standards for blast furnaces at iron and steel installations built in the State of Maryland on or after January 1, 1977, must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This rule may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On October 28, 1999 (64 FR 58008), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following:

1. The broad start-up exemption in section 4.2 and 3.17.

2. The broad idling exemption in section 4.2 and 3.8.

3. The broad shut-down exemption in section 4.2 and 3.16.

4. The first equation in section 5.3.

5. The lack of final compliance dates in section 7.

6. The averaging provisions in section 9.

Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. On December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69448) we reopened this comment period for an additional 16 days. During the comment period, we received comments from the following parties.

1. David Jones, SJVUAPCD; letter dated December 28, 1999.

2. James Benney, Primary Glass Manufacturers Council (PGMC); letter dated November 24, 1999.

3. D.K. Green, PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG); letter dated November 24, 1999.

4. Phillip Newell, Guardian Industries Corporation (GIC); letter dated December 22, 1999.

5. Peter Okurowski, California Environmental Associates; letter dated December 29, 1999 for the Glass Packaging Institute (GPI).

The comments and our responses are summarized below.

Comment #1: Most of the commenters in some fashion commented that the start-up, idling, and/or shutdown exemptions in section 4.2 are necessary and that EPA's concerns with them are ill-founded because facilities have incentive to minimize their duration.

EPA Response: EPA appreciates that some variation in emission or operating requirements may be appropriate during these periods. However, the Clean Air Act specifically requires that any emissions limitations approved into the SIP be enforceable. 42 U.S.C. 37410 (a)(2)(A). In addition, 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, requires any rules approved into a SIP to contain “Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.” EPA has interpreted these statutory and regulatory requirements in its excess emissions policy. EPA has found that provisions like section 4.2 must include enforceable temporal and quantitative limitations tailored to minimize emissions from the specific affected sources. Some of the comments (e.g., PPG) provided information that may be useful if San Joaquin wishes to demonstrate why relatively long excess emission periods are appropriate for glass furnaces. None of the comments, however, demonstrate that section 4.2 will minimize the time and amount of excess emissions. We are particularly, although not solely, concerned that section 4.2 could allow some excess emissions to occur indefinitely and without requiring any efforts (e.g., operation of monitoring and control equipment) to reduce emissions. For these reasons, EPA has determined that section 4.2 is a deficiency because it is inconsistent with the enforceability requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

Comment #2: SJVUAPCD commented that the 180-day start-up exemption is at least as stringent as similar provisions that EPA has approved in New Source Performance Standards (i.e., 40 CFR 60.8a) and various state permits.

EPA Response: 40 CFR 60.8a does not exempt sources from all emission requirements during a 180-day start-up period as does Rule 4354. Exemptions in the referenced state permits should have been issued based on demonstrations that any start-up exemptions were appropriate for the specific permitted technologies. Thus, for the reasons explained in response to Comment #1, EPA disagrees with this comment and continues to find the rule deficient because it lacks enforceability required by the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

Comment #3: SJVUAPCD commented that Rule 4354's start-up exemption complies with the various requirements of EPA's excess emissions policy.

EPA Response: EPA's excess emissions policy contains limited exemptions for specific technologies. Rule 4354's start-up exemption, however, is not limited to specific technologies because “innovative technologies” is not defined. In addition, as discussed in response to Comment #1, nothing in the rule requires that emissions be minimized during start-up (e.g., requiring the control equipment be operational). Because these two threshold requirements for enforceability as interpreted in EPA's excess emissions policy are clearly not met, we are not evaluating the remainder of this comment regarding compliance with the other requirements. In summary, EPA disagrees with the comment and continues to find the rule deficient because it lacks enforceability required by the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

Comment #4: GIC disagreed with EPA's statement that, “burner controls operate from the start, a SCR unit can start at 650 F., and a SNCR can begin operation at 1800 F.”

EPA Response: This statement was part of our explanation for why Rule 4354's start-up exemption is overly broad. Regardless of the comment, our point remains that the rule does not comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for enforceability because sources are not required to minimize emissions, temporally and quantitatively, during start-up. While sources may not be able to achieve the Rule's Tier II emissions limitations during start-up, we believe some quantitative emission limits and/or operation requirements are appropriate and that the period for such a condition must be limited. Without such limitations, the rule fails to comply with the CAA enforceability requirements.

Comment #5: GPI commented that an annual emission limit can be inferred from Rule 4354 and individual facility permits, and that emissions during start-up and other exemption periods will not cause exceedance of this annual limit.

EPA Response: Rule 4354 establishes emission limits averaged over three hours. There is no provision in the rule allowing compliance with these limits to be averaged over a year, and we would consider any attempt to do so as a significant rule relaxation. In addition, there is currently nothing in the start-up or other exemptions that would restrict emissions to a theoretical annual emission limit or any other limit. For the reasons discussed in more detail above, the rule is deficient and EPA is finalizing this limited approval and limited disapproval.

Comment #6: GPI commented that RACT control systems are in place at all times, presumably including start-up periods.

EPA Response: Nothing in the rule currently requires operation of RACT or any other control systems during start-up. Such a requirement would, however, help address EPA's concern with the rule's existing start-up exemption.

Comment #7: GPI commented that facilities using alternatives to CEMS will test emissions many times during the first 90 days of operation.

EPA Response: EPA has determined that the rule is deficient because it fails to meet enforceability requirements unless the rule contains temporal and quantitative emission limits during start-up, regardless of how often facilities test emissions.

Comment #8: GPI would support modifying Rule 4354 to limit the period of, “beginning operational changes” to 24 hours.

EPA Response: EPA is not concerned with limiting the duration of the period of “beginning operational changes,” but with limiting the duration of the idling and other exemptions themselves.

Comment #9: GPI would support modifying Rule 4354 to require some degree of additional monitoring during periods of startup and idling to further assure EPA and SJVUAPCD that NOX emissions do not increase during these periods.

EPA Response: No changes to EPA's action is recommended, so no response required.

Comment #10: PGMC and PPG commented that the idling exemption is only intended to apply when a facility needs to make repairs to their furnace.

EPA Response: Rule 4354 should be revised so that idling is expressly limited to those times where there is a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown that requires repairs. Also, the rule should be revised so that excess emissions that result from a breakdown are not exempt. Instead, the revised rule may be approvable if it provides that facilities may demonstrate an affirmative defense against penalties as recommended in EPA's September 20, 1999 excess emissions policy that interprets the enforcibility requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).

Comment #11: SJVUAPCD commented that EPA's interpretation of the sign “/” in the equation of section 5.3 is incorrect, and there is no need to reformat the equation to clarify that “CF” is a numerator.

EPA Response: EPA and the District agree on the purpose of this equation, and EPA does not intend to withhold approval of the rule on this issue alone. However, we think the equation as written could be misinterpreted, and we recommend it be reformatted for greater clarity.

Comment #12: Several commenters provided information to the affect that there is no need to establish a final compliance date to prevent avoidance of controls by running without a rebuild, because furnaces cannot operate forever without a rebuild.

EPA Response: For purposes of complying with the enforceability requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), we believe the District must provide a compliance trigger in the rule that is linked to furnace rebuild. However, while it is unlikely that the District and a facility will disagree on whether a triggering rebuild has occurred, we recommend eliminating this possibility by establishing a final compliance date by which the rule will enforceably require all furnaces to be rebuilt.

Comment #13: GPI would support modifying Rule 4354 to mandate compliance with the Tier 2 monitoring requirements and standards by a specified date.

EPA Response: No changes to EPA's proposed action recommended, so no response required.

Comment #14: SJVUAPCD commented that the alternative compliance option in Rule 4354 should not be treated as an economic incentive programs (EIP) and subjected to the requirements of EPA's EIP policies.

EPA Response: At least since issuance of the Emissions Trading Policy Statement (ETPS) on December 4, 1986 (51 FR 43814), EPA has consistently required averaging programs such as the alternative compliance option provided in Rule 4354, to meet EIP policy and guidance. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the comment and has determined that the rule language is deficient because it fails to require additional environmental benefit in conjunction with an averaging program.

Comment #15: GPI commented that EPA's EIP and related policies should not apply to facilities that duct multiple furnaces to a single stack for reasons other than averaging.

EPA Response: Facilities manifolding multiple furnaces and monitoring emissions at a single stack are effectively averaging, regardless of whether that is their purpose. Such facilities have the advantage of being able to offset high emitting units with low ones and are, therefore, subject to EIP and related requirements including the 10% environmental benefit.

Comment #16: GIC commented that EPA should not object to Rule 4354 because it meets all federal regulations.

EPA Response: As discussed in our proposal and further explained in our response to the comments on the proposal, several components of the rule do not comply with section 110, particularly the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A), and part D of the federal Clean Air Act. The rule, therefore, does not comply with the CAA requirements and is not fully approvable.

Comment #17: GIC commented that EPA's concerns are not constructive at this time, and that EPA should have learned about the glass industry and raised its concerns during development of Rule 4354 from 1996-1998.

EPA Response: EPA regrets that the deficiencies raised in our proposed limited disapproval were not addressed during rule development. However, section 110 of the Clean Air Act prohibits us from approving SIP rules that violate federal requirements.

Comment #18: GPI asked that any revisions made to Rule 4354 as a result of this limited disapproval be approved by EPA quickly. GPI stated its understanding that all sections of the rule not identified as having deficiencies are acceptable to EPA.

EPA Response: If SJVUAPCD submits a revised rule that adequately corrects the deficiencies cited as the basis for our limited disapproval, EPA intends to fully approve the rule amendments and to discontinue the CAA section 179 sanctions clock expeditiously.

EPA has carefully considered and evaluated all of the comments. For the reasons stated above, however, we still consider the provisions of the rule cited in our proposal to be deficient, but that the rule overall strengthens the SIP. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless CARB submits and EPA approves, amendments to Rule 4354 that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13121, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will 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), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major” rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Entities potentially regulated by the action are those that use analytical test methods to comply with the RFG program. Regulated categories and entities include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists all entities that we are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be regulated by this action. To determine whether your business is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 80 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section of this document.

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to establish standards requiring the greatest reduction in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air emissions achievable through the reformulation of conventional gasoline, considering cost, other health and environmental factors and energy requirements. The Act requires that RFG meet certain content standards for oxygen, benzene, and heavy metals. RFG must be used in certain ozone nonattainment areas, called “covered areas.” The CAA also requires EPA to establish anti-dumping standards applicable to conventional gasoline used in the rest of the country. We issued final RFG and anti-dumping regulations on December 15, 1993 1 and these regulations became effective in January 1995.

Under the RFG and anti-dumping program, refiners, importers, and oxygenate blenders are required to test RFG and conventional gasoline for certain parameters, including sulfur levels, aromatic content, benzene content, and oxygen content. Test methods for determining these parameters are specified in the regulation. For oxygen and oxygenate content, 40 CFR 80.46(g)(1) through (8), (9)(ii), and (h) specify the use of the gas chromatographic procedure using an oxygenate flame ionization detector, or the “GC-OFID method.” For aromatics content, 40 CFR 80.46(f)(1)-(2) specifies the gas chromatography method.

Based upon comments received from the regulated industry during the RFG and anti-dumping rulemaking process, we concluded that it would be appropriate to temporarily allow the use of test methods not specified in the regulation for measuring oxygen and aromatics content. These comments tended to indicate that the designated test methods for oxygen and aromatics content were costly and relatively new, so we agreed to permit industry to use two specified alternative analytical test methods until January 1, 1997. The alternative analytical test method for oxygen is ASTM D 4815-93, entitled “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,” and the alternative analytical test method for aromatics is ASTM D 1319-93, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Flourescent Indicator Adsorption.” These alternative analytical test methods are specified in § 80.46(g)(9)(i) and (f)(3), respectively.

We later extended the deadline for use of the two alternative analytical test methods to September 1, 1998 2 and September 1, 2000.3 In granting these further extensions, we determined that permitting continued use of the specified alternative test methods would grant refiners, importers, and blenders significant flexibility and would not result in any environmental detriment. We continue to believe that the flexibility associated with alternative test methods will not result in any environmental detriment and that it is appropriate to allow these methods to be used. In the earlier notices, we discussed our intent to engage in a notice and comment rulemaking to establish performance-based analytical test methods. A performance-based approach would apply to the measurement of all RFG parameters listed at § 80.46 and would not be limited to oxygen and aromatics content. A performance-based approach would allow regulated parties additional flexibility in choosing analytical test methods since, rather than specifying the exact test method and equipment to be used, a performance-based approach would define the degree of precision and accuracy methods must meet and sets forth procedures to qualify methods for use.

By today's direct final rule, we are extending the time period during which the alternative test methods may be used to September 1, 2004 or until such time as a performance-based test methods approach rulemaking can be completed, whichever is sooner. Today's direct final rule only applies to the test methods for aromatics and oxygen content. As part of this direct final rule, we are updating the two alternative test methods that may be used to measure oxygen and aromatics content to their current versions. The current version of the alternative analytical test method for aromatics is ASTM D 1319-99, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Flourescent Indicator Adsorption.” The current version of the alternative analytical test method for oxygen and oxygenate content is ASTM D 4815-99, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohol in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.” These two alternative test methods have been updated from ASTM D 1319-93 and ASTM D 4815-93, respectively. The updated methods incorporate minor technical revisions to help the person using the test method achieve more accurate results and do not require different or additional testing apparatus. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to designate the current versions of these ASTM methods as the allowable alternative test methods. Doing so wouldn't affect our earlier determination that there would be no environmental detriment, since these changes are minor. This decision is not expected to be controversial, since the full flexibility associated with the use of alternative analytical test methods will be maintained.

Today's direct final rule only continues the existing flexibility in the use of these two alternative test methods. Consideration of test methods other than the specified alternative test methods for oxygen and aromatics is beyond the limited scope of this direct final rule. The performance-based test methods approach will establish criteria for qualifying other test methods for use. We do invite comment on the usefulness of other specific alternative test methods, not covered by this direct final rule, and on the appropriateness of considering such methods in future rulemaking actions.

We believe that this direct final rule, and our intent to establish a performance-based test method approach, will help advance the purposes of the “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,” section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119. Both of these documents are designed to encourage the adoption of standards developed by “voluntary consensus bodies” and to reduce reliance on government-unique standards where such consensus standards would suffice. This direct final rule provides an extension of the deadline for using certain alternative test methods until September 1, 2004. We reasonably expect to complete rulemaking on the performance-based test methods approach prior to September 1, 2004. The performance-based test methods approach will address the use of these and other test methods.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a Serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The Agency has determined that this regulation would result in none of the economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order because it generally relaxes the requirements of the RFG program and provides regulated parties with more flexibility with respect to compliance with the RFG requirements. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has waived review of this action.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.

This direct final rule will 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. This rule would provide regulatory relief for refiners who choose to use alternative test methods and does not impose any substantial direct effects on the states. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's direct final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Today's direct final rule does not create a mandate for any tribal governments. This direct final rule applies to gasoline refiners, importers, and blenders. Today's action makes some changes that would generally provide flexibility within the Federal RFG requirements, and does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this direct final rule.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Today's direct final rule would provide regulatory relief by extending the deadline for use of alternative test methods for RFG. We have therefore concluded that today's direct final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the direct final rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

This action does not add any new requirements involving the collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in the final RFG/anti-dumping rulemaking (See 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1591.07).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's direct final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The direct final rule would impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This direct final rule applies to gasoline refiners, blenders and importers. Today's action makes changes that would provide regulated parties with more flexibility with respect to compliance with the RFG requirements.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62FR19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This direct final rule merely extends the deadline for use of alternative test methods under the RFG program and will not have an adverse effect on air quality.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This direct final rule provides an extension of deadline for use of certain analytical test methods for the RFG program until such time as a notice-and-comment rulemaking to establish performance-based analytical test methods is completed. Today's action does not establish new technical standards or analytical test methods, although it does update existing alternative ASTM test methods to their current versions. To the extent that this action allows the use of standards developed by voluntary consensus bodies (such as ASTM) this direct final rule furthers the objectives of the NTTAA. The Agency plans to address the objectives of the NTTAA more broadly in the upcoming rulemaking to establish performance-based analytical test methods.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This direct final rule will be effective October 16, 2000.

Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

This summarizes the Commission's Fifth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 95-155, In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, FCC 00-237, adopted June 28, 2000, and released July 5, 2000. The full text of the item is available for inspection and copying during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission's Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12 Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, ITS, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Suite CY-B400, Washington, DC 20554, phone (202) 857-3800. This Report and Order contains no new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

In the Fifth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 95-155, we resolve outstanding issues raised in the toll free number rulemaking proceeding related to the propriety of Database Service Management Inc. (DSMI) serving as the administrator of the toll free number database.1 We approve the recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) that DSMI continue to serve as the administrator of the toll free number database system, referred to as the SMS/800 system, at this time. We find that DSMI is an impartial administrator under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act. We also direct the NANC to provide recommendations on restructuring the ownership and operation of the current system of toll free number administration within 180 days of the effective date of this Order.

Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 251, that the Fifth Report and Order in CC Docket 95-155 is hereby adopted.

The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending part 95 in the Federal Register of July 17, 2000 (65 FR 43995). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In rule FR Doc. 00-17970 published on July 17, 2000 (65 FR 43395), the Commission is correcting §§ 95.401(d), 95.631(h) and 95.639(f) of the Commission's rules to reflect the correct CFR designations §§ 95.401(e), 95.631(i) and 95.639(g).

In rule FR Doc. 00-17970 published on July 17, 2000, (65 FR 43995) make the following corrections:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, having due regard for the zones of temperature and for the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, to determine when, to what extent, and by what means such birds or any part, nest or egg thereof may be taken, hunted, captured, killed, possessed, sold, purchased, shipped, carried, exported or transported.

In the August 18, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 50483), we proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2000-01 hunting season for certain Indian tribes, under the guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23467). The guidelines respond to tribal requests for Service recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:

(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers, with hunting by non-tribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);

(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and

(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10-September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada.

In the April 25, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 24260), we requested that tribes desiring special hunting regulations in the 2000-01 hunting season submit a proposal including details on:

(a) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;

(b) Methods that would be employed to measure or monitor harvest (such as bag checks, mail questionnaires, etc.);

(c) Steps that would be taken to limit level of harvest, where it could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would adversely impact the migratory bird resource; and

(d) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird hunting regulations.

No action is required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which an Indian reservation is located. We have successfully used the guidelines since the 1985-86 hunting season. We finalized the guidelines beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (August 18, 1988, Federal Register [53 FR 31612]).

Although the proposed rule included generalized regulations for both early- and late-season hunting, this rulemaking addresses only the early-season proposals. Late-season hunting will be addressed in late-September. As a general rule, early seasons begin during September each year and have a primary emphasis on such species as mourning and white-winged dove. Late seasons begin about October 1 or later each year and have a primary emphasis on waterfowl.

In the August 18 Federal Register, we reviewed the status for various populations for which early seasons were proposed. This information included brief summaries of the May Breeding Waterfowl and Habitat Survey and population status reports for blue-wing teal, Canada goose populations hunted in September seasons, sea ducks, sandhill cranes, woodcock, mourning doves, white-winged doves, white-tipped doves, and band-tailed pigeons. As a result of these status, we have responded by proposing Flyway frameworks that are essentially the same as those of last season for the 2000-01 waterfowl hunting season (August 22, 2000, Federal Register, 65 FR 51174). The tribal seasons established below are commensurate with the population status.

For the 2000-01 migratory bird hunting season, we proposed regulations for 25 tribes and/or Indian groups that followed the 1985 guidelines and were considered appropriate for final rulemaking. Some of the proposals submitted by the tribes had both early- and late-season elements. However, as noted earlier, only those with early-season proposals are included in this final rulemaking; 18 tribes have proposals with early seasons. Comments and revised proposals received to date are addressed in the following section. The comment period for the proposed rule, published on August 18, 2000, closed on August 28, 2000. Because of the necessary brief comment period, we will respond to any comments received on the proposed rule and/or these late-season regulations not responded to herein in the September late-season final rule.

We received one comment regarding the notice of intent published on April 25, 2000, which announced rulemaking on regulations for migratory bird hunting by American Indian tribal members. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources commented on the establishment of tribal regulations on 1836 Treaty areas. Michigan believed it was premature of the Service to establish waterfowl regulations in areas covered by the 1835 Treaty until such time as the issue of 1836 Treaty hunting rights are affirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Service Response: Our position is that the Federal Government does recognize the Treaty of 1836 as reserving to the affected tribes or bands hunting rights in the ceded territory. Further, the Federal courts have already confirmed the retention of reserved fishing rights in the territory ceded by the Treaty of 1836 in United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192 (W.D. Mich. 1979), remanded, 623 F.2d 448 (6th Cir. 1980), order modified, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 (1981). That case and cases dealing with other treaty cessions, such as Lac Courte Oreilles v. Wisconsin (i.e., both the 1837 and the 1842 Treaties), provide persuasive precedent for the belief that hunting as well as fishing rights were reserved by the tribes in the Treaty of 1836. We have not altered our position on this matter.

Pursuant to the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), the “Final Environmental Statement for the Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FES-75-74)” was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on June 6, 1975, and notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 1975, (40 FR 25241). A supplement to the final environmental statement, the “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (SEIS 88-14)” was filed on June 9, 1988, and notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and June 17, 1988 (53 FR 22727). Copies of these documents are available from us at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES. In addition, an August 1985 Environmental Assessment titled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the same address.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat . . .” Consequently, we conducted consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion and may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed. The final frameworks reflect any modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from its Section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection in the Service's Division of Endangered Species and DMBM, at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail and issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The Analysis was based on the 1996 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between $429 million and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request.

Collectively, the rules covering the overall frameworks for migratory bird hunting are economically significant and have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. This rule is a small portion of the overall migratory bird hunting frameworks and was not individually submitted and reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866.

This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808 (1) and this rule will be effective immediately.

We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. We utilize the various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 9/30/2001). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 7/31/2003). The information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the geographical and temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion it constitutes of the total population. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments, and will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, these rules, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, do not have significant takings implications and do not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. These rules will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, in accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, by virtue of the tribal proposals received in response to the April 25, 2000, request for proposals and the August 18, 2000, proposed rule, we have consulted with all the tribes affected by this rule.

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment on the regulations. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, the tribes would have insufficient time to communicate these seasons to their member and non-tribal hunters and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions.

We therefore find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these regulations will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication.

Therefore, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, as amended (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), we prescribe final hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands), and ceded lands. The regulations specify the species to be hunted and establish season dates, bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours for migratory game birds.

Season Dates: Open September 20, 2000, close January 20, 2001.

Daily Bag Limit: 10 ducks, which may include no more than 1 pintail, 1 canvasback, 2 black ducks, 1 hooded merganser, 2 wood ducks, 2 redheads, and 5 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens).

Season Dates: Open September 1, close November 30, 2000, and open January 1, 2001, close February 8, 2001.

Daily Bag Limit: Five geese.

Season Dates: Open October 1, close November 30, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five geese.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close November 14, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five rails, Five snipe, and Five woodcock.

General Conditions: A valid Grand Traverse Band Tribal license is required for all persons 12 years and older and must be in possession before taking any wildlife. All other basic regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 are valid. Other tribal regulations apply, and may be obtained at the tribal office in Suttons Bay, Michigan.

A. Wisconsin and Minnesota 1837 and 1842 Zones:

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 20 ducks, including no more than 10 mallards (only 5 of which may be hens), 4 black ducks, 4 redheads, 4 pintails, and 2 canvasbacks.

B. Michigan 1836 and 1842 Treaty Zones:

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 10 ducks, including no more than 5 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens), 2 black ducks, 2 redheads, 2 pintails, and 1 canvasback.

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five mergansers.

Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 1, 2000. In addition, any portion of the ceded territory which is open to State-licensed hunters for goose hunting after December 1 shall also be open concurrently for tribal members.

Daily Bag Limit: 10 geese.

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens (common gallinules), singly or in the aggregate.

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 25 sora and Virginia rails singly, or in the aggregate.

Season Dates: Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Eight common snipe.

Season Dates: Begin September 5 and end December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five woodcock.

General Conditions

1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.

2. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin (Voigt) and Mille Lacs Band v. State of Minnesota cases. The respective Chapter 10 of these model codes regulate ceded territory migratory bird hunting. They parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR Part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting. They also automatically incorporate by reference the Federal migratory bird regulations adopted.

3. Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.

4. Possession limits for each species are double the daily bag limit, except on the opening day of the season, when the possession limit equals the daily bag limit, unless otherwise noted above. Possession limits are applicable only to transportation and do not include birds that are cleaned, dressed, and at a member's primary residence. For purposes of enforcing bag and possession limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of tribal members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. In Wisconsin, such tagging will comply with applicable State laws. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.

5. Minnesota and Michigan—Duck Blinds and Decoys. Tribal members hunting in Michigan and Minnesota will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions that parallel applicable State laws concerning duck blinds and/or decoys.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 31, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than one pintail, two hen mallards, four scaup, and one canvasback.

Season Dates: Open September 1, 2000, close January 31, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four geese, including four dark geese but not more than three light geese. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

General: Tribal members must possess a validated Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close September 15, then open September 24, close October 8, 2000.

Daily Bag Limits: Five geese in the first portion and two geese thereafter.

Season Dates: Open September 15, close November 14, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 25 rails, 8 snipe, and 3 woodcock.

General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit, except for rails, which are equal to the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 20, close January 20, 2001.

Daily Bag Limits: 10 ducks, including no more than 5 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens), 2 black ducks, 2 redheads, 2 wood ducks, 1 pintail, 1 hooded merganser, and 1 canvasback.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close November 30, 2000, then open January 1, 2001, close February 8, 2001.

Daily Bag Limits: Five geese.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close November 14, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five rails, five snipe, and five woodcock.

General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits.

Season Dates: Open September 16, close December 31, 2000.

Daily Bag Limits: 10 birds.

Season Dates: Open September 2, close December 31, 2000.

Daily Bag Limits: 10 geese.

General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Non-toxic shot is required.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close September 30, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 and 10 pigeons, respectively.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close September 30, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

General Conditions: Tribal and non-tribal hunters will comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR Part 20, regarding shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or over must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation.

Season Dates: Open September 16, close November 17, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Six ducks, including no more than five mallards (only one of which may be a hen), five wood ducks, one canvasback, one redhead, two pintails, and one hooded merganser. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close November 18, open November 27, close December 31, 2000.

Daily Bag and Limits: Five brant, three Canada geese, and five snow geese. Geese must be tagged after harvest with tribal tags. The tribe will reissue tags upon registration of the daily bag limit. A season quota of 150 birds is adopted. If the quota is reached before the season concludes, the season will be closed at that time.

Season Dates: Open September 16, close November 17, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 and 10 woodcock, respectively.

General Conditions: Tribal members and non-tribal members hunting on the Oneida Indian Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Oneida Nation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20. Tribal hunters are exempt from the requirement to purchase a Migratory Waterfowl Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) and the plugging of shotgun to limit capacity to three shells.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, two pintails, one canvasback, two redheads, and one harlequin duck. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four geese, and may include no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two brant. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag Limits: 25 coots.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close September 30, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

Season Dates: Open September 15, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 snipe, respectively.

General Conditions: All hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds on the reservation must obtain a tribal hunting permit from the respective tribe. Hunters are also required to adhere to a number of special regulations available at the tribal office.

Season Dates: September 17, 2000, through January 20, 2001.

Daily Bag Limit: 15 doves.

General Conditions: Hunting is on Sundays only. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Five ducks, including no more than one canvasback. The season on harlequin ducks is closed. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four geese, and may include no more than two snow geese and one dusky Canada goose. The season on Aleutian and Cackling Canada geese is closed. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

Season Dates: Open September 15, close December 31, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four brant, respectively.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag Limits: 25 coots.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, and close January 15, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 snipe, respectively.

Season Dates: Open September 15, close December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four pigeons, respectively.

General Conditions: All tribal hunters must obtain a Tribal Hunting Tag and Permit from the tribe's Natural Resources Department and must have the permit, along with the member's treaty enrollment card, on his or her person while hunting. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset and steel shot is required for all migratory bird hunting. Other special regulations are available at the tribal office in Shelton, Washington.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, and close February 1, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 6 and 12 ducks, respectively; except that bag and possession limits are restricted for blue-winged teal, canvasback, harlequin, pintail, and wood duck to those established for the Pacific Flyway by final Federal frameworks, to be announced.

Season Dates: Open September 15, 2000, and close February 1, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 6 and 12 geese, respectively; except that the bag limits for brant and cackling and dusky Canada geese are those established for the Pacific Flyway in accordance with final Federal frameworks, to be announced. The tribes also set a maximum annual bag limit on ducks and geese for those tribal members who engage in subsistence hunting.

General Conditions: All waterfowl hunters, members and non-members, must obtain and possess while hunting a valid hunting permit from the Tulalip tribes. Also, non-tribal members sixteen years of age and older, hunting pursuant to Tulalip Tribes' Ordinance No. 67, must possess a validated Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a validated State of Washington Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. All Tulalip tribal members must have in their possession while hunting, or accompanying another, their valid tribal identification card. All hunters are required to adhere to a number of other special regulations enforced by the tribes and available at the tribal office.

Season Dates: Open September 19, 2000, and close January 20, 2001.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 4 Canada geese and 15 snow geese.

General Conditions: Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Non-toxic shot is required. Tribal members will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations contained in 50 CFR.

Season Dates: Open September 16, close December 17, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit for Ducks: Eight ducks, including no more than two mallards and one canvasback through September 22 and no more than two hen mallards and two canvasbacks thereafter.

Daily Bag Limit for Mergansers: Five mergansers, including no more than four hooded mergansers.

Season Dates: Open September 1, close December 17, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: Five geese.

Season Dates: Open September 16, close December 17, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots.

Season Dates: Open September 9, close December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 25 sora and Virginia rails, singly or in the aggregate. The possession limit is 25.

Season Dates: Open September 9, close December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 10 snipe and 10 woodcock.

Season Dates: Open September 9, close December 1, 2000.

Daily Bag Limit: 25 doves.

General Conditions: Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Non-toxic shot is required.

Season Dates: Open September 6, close September 20, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Three and six pigeons, respectively.

Season Dates: Open September 6, close September 20, 2000.

Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

General Conditions: All non-tribal hunters hunting band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves on Reservation lands shall have in their possession a valid White Mountain Apache Daily or Yearly Small Game Permit. In addition to a small game permit, all non-tribal hunters hunting band-tailed pigeons must have in their possession a White Mountain Special Band-tailed Pigeon Permit. Other special regulations established by the White Mountain Apache Tribe apply on the reservation. Tribal and non-tribal hunters will comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR Part 20 regarding shooting hours and manner of taking.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The amount of the 2000 TAC of other red rockfish in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI was established as 165 metric tons by the Final 2000 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish for the BSAI (65 FR 8282, February 18, 2000). See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the amount of the 2000 TAC for other red rockfish in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI has been achieved. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that further catches of other red rockfish in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. It must be implemented immediately to prevent overharvesting the amount of the 2000 TAC of other red rockfish in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. A delay in the effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The fleet has taken the amount of the 2000 TAC of other red rockfish in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. Further delay would only result in overharvest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 was established by the Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish for the GOA (65 FR 8298, February 18, 2000, and subsequent correction 65 FR 11909, March 7, 2000) as 24,501 metric tons (mt) for the entire fishing year and 9,008 mt for the C season allowance.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A and B seasonal catch was in excess of the allowances by 5,640 mt and that the excess shall be proportionately subtracted from the subsequent seasonal allowances. In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(ii)(C), the C seasonal allowance of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 5,931 mt.

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 5,731 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. It must be implemented immediately to prevent overharvesting the seasonal allocation of pollock in Statistical Area 630. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further delay would only result in overharvest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action should not be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.