This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require a consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule related notice entitled, “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted, no retroactive effort will be given to this rule, and, in accordance with sec. 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.

RUS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The RUS telecommunications program provides loans to borrowers at interest rates and on terms that are more favorable than those generally available from the private sector. RUS borrowers, as a result of obtaining federal financing, receive economic benefits that exceed any direct economic costs associated with complying with RUS regulations and requirements.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), RUS invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These requirements have been approved by emergency clearance under OMB Control Number 0572-0126.

Comments on this information collection must be received by October 9, 2001.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1522, Room 4034 South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-1522.

Title: 7 CFR part 1744, subpart B, “Lien Accommodation and Subordination Policy”

Type of Request: New collection.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and non-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 23.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078.

All responses to this information collection and recordkeeping notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Administrator of RUS has determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Therefore, this action does not require an environmental impact statement or assessment.

The program described by this rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under number 10.851, Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees; and number 10.852, Rural Telephone Bank Loans. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents, the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

RUS is amending its regulations covering lien accommodations under certain circumstances where the borrower's financial strength is sufficient to protect security for the Government's loans and the lender seeking a lien accommodation.

Since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides for a competitive, deregulated national telecommunications policy framework, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been working to implement the provisions of the law. As those provisions begin to be integrated through the FCC's rulemaking process, the FCC is focusing on the types of telecommunications service that must be made available to all Americans; i.e. part of universal service, and the benefits to all Americans from advanced services for schools, libraries, and rural health care providers. The newly competitive environment will undoubtedly affect the rural telecommunications marketplace. For the industry as a whole—urban and rural—competition will offer the means for delivering the universal service concept envisioned by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the competitive marketplace of the future, investment in infrastructure will be lucrative in markets where local exchange carriers seek to attract high-usage, low-cost subscribers. Competition will be fierce and customers will be the winners as their demands for new and improved service at affordable rates will be met. Yet in rural and high-cost areas, where quality of service and advanced service offerings are just as important, there is less potential for investment based on competition. Investment will need to be encouraged in the form of incentives through the universal support mechanisms and the lending programs of RUS, as well as private sources of financing. RUS will continue its partnership with rural America to ensure that telecommunications providers will have the means to modernize their networks; however, industry deregulation and new technological developments have caused RUS borrowers and other organizations providing telecommunications services to consider undertaking projects that provide new telecommunications services and other telecommunications services not ordinarily financed by RUS. Although some of these services may not be eligible for financing under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Act), these services may nevertheless advance RE Act objectives where the borrower obtains financing from private lenders.

Due to the changing environment of the telecommunications industry, large or predominately non-rural local exchange carriers (LECs) are selling their more rural exchanges in order to concentrate on their more lucrative service areas. This “sell-off” provides an opportunity for rural LECs to expand their service territories. Typically, these acquired exchanges will need infrastructure improvements and the rural LECs will work hard to provide state-of-the-art service. This will require increased investment. RUS loans for infrastructure building can enable rural LECs to upgrade plant and service territories that may have been neglected for years. All subscribers, urban and rural, benefit from improvements to the national network. While opportunities exist for rural LECs to expand their markets and continue the tradition of providing the best possible service available to rural residents, uncertainties regarding future revenue streams and the availability of funds from universal service support may hamper some small LECs' investment decisions. The amendments to this regulation will help to facilitate funding from non-RUS sources in order to meet the growing capital needs of rural LECs. Depending on the purposes for which a lien accommodation is being sought, RUS will provide “automatic” approval for borrowers that meet the financial tests described in this rule. RUS believes that borrowers that are financially sound should be afforded more flexibility with regard to financial arrangements with outside lenders for the purpose of promoting rural telecommunications. The tests are designed to ensure that the financial strength of the borrower is more than sufficient to protect the government's loan security interests; hence, the lien accommodations will not adversely affect the government's financial interests.

In addition to providing for automatic lien accommodations, this amendment removes the requirement for borrowers seeking lien accommodations to comply with competitive bid procedures under 7 CFR part 1753. Further, RUS proposes to address other concerns involved in the accommodation of the Government's lien for those borrowers that do not qualify for an automatic lien accommodation in a subsequent revision to this subpart.

A proposed rule was published December 15, 1999, at 64 FR 69946.

During the comment period that ended February 14, 2000, RUS received comments from the following organizations:

(1) Cooper, White & Cooper LLR, representing:National Rural Telecom Association Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies United States Telecom Association; and Western Rural Telephone Association

(2) Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative; and

(3) CoBank.

The comments and RUS' responses follow:

Comment summary. The respondents commented that RUS should utilize consolidated financial reports when determining a borrower's eligibility for an “automatic” lien accommodation under this rule, rather than unconsolidated borrower financial statements that reflect only the telecommunication company's or cooperative's financial condition.

RUS response. When dealing with the security of the government's loans, RUS must rely on the financial strength of the borrower and its ability to survive economically based on its “telecommunications service” operations. Basing financial tests on consolidated statements may distort the true health of the borrower's financial position with regards to its operations. In addition, the RUS mortgage does not provide a lien on assets not held by the borrower and therefore, RUS believes the best measure is to use unconsolidated statements.

Comment summary. The respondents request that RUS implement rule changes that would allow a borrower to effect the release of lien of the government's mortgage on after-acquired property upon a showing of sufficient financial strength to ensure that the government's security interest is adequate to protect the RUS loan.

RUS response. RUS disagrees with this position. RUS views each borrower as an ‘on-going’ project whereby the strength of its operations as a whole is needed to adequately secure the government's interests. Commercial operations are oftentimes cyclical and evidence of current financial strength is not an insurance of future financial performance.

Comment summary. The respondents requested that RUS clarify whether TIER and Debt Service were calculated on a before or after-tax basis.

RUS response. As noted in the definition section, both ratios use ‘net income’, denoting that the calculations are after income taxes.

Comment summary. The respondents requested that RUS eliminate the requirement that the weighted average life of the new private lender notes does not exceed the remaining weighted average life of the notes being refinanced, stating that in some cases, longer maturity periods that would reduce debt service payment could improve cash flow. In addition, the respondents requested that the terms of the loans be measured by the borrowers ability to repay the loan as indicated by TIER and Debt Service Coverage.

RUS response. Increasing the life of the loan beyond the remaining original life could have the effect of severely under-collaterallizing the debt, thereby putting the lenders at risk of not having sufficient assets to provide adequate security. An open-ended maturity period, as suggested by relying on TIER and Debt Service Coverage indicators, only exacerbates the lenders' risks.

Comment summary. RUS should increase the principal amount of a loan from a private lender to refinance or refund the Government's loan from not greater than 105 percent of the of the balance of the notes being refunded or refinanced to not less than 112 percent, or eliminate the percentage limitation altogether. The respondents propose that this would allow borrowers to cover additional closing and fees associated with the new financing.

RUS response. RUS recognizes that loans from private lenders may contain fees and equity contribution requirements, and therefore, will raise the percentage limitation from not more than 105 percent to not more than 112 percent. This should provide a reasonable level at which borrowers seeking to finance closing costs and associated fees and equity contributions would be able to do so.

Comment summary. Sections 1744.30(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) could be in conflict with each other if the number of years remaining on a loan to be refinanced is less than five. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) requires the refinancing to be amortized for a period of not less than five years.

RUS response. RUS agrees that there is the potential for conflict in the way the proposed rule worded those sections. The final rule has been modified to allow for the amortization period of the loan to be, at a minimum, the original remaining years to maturity.

Comment summary. The respondents stated a preference for a net assets to long-term debt test instead of the proposed net plant to long-term debt test in §§ 1744.30(d)(2) and 1744.30(e)(2). As stated in the rule, the ratio includes, on a pro-forma basis, the new private lender debt but does not include the plant associated with that debt. In addition, where the proceeds of the private lender debt go to a subsidiary, even if the formula accounted for the new assets, they would not be recorded on the borrower's balance sheet, thereby reducing the borrower's ability to meet the test. The respondents argued that using net assets, where the borrower owns assets that are not counted as plant, would be better since many borrowers have substantial assets that are not plant.

RUS response. The premise behind providing “automatic” lien accommodations is based on the strength of a borrower's financial condition and a negligible potential for loan security risk based on that strength. Using net plant rather than net assets counts only those assets on which the government's mortgage provides a perfected first lien. RUS has, however, revised the ratio test to include, on a pro-forma basis, the associated plant to be added by the private lender debt, when that plant is owned directly by the borrower. In the case of a borrower flowing through the proceeds of the private lender debt to a subsidiary, RUS believes that the borrower should have sufficient net plant need to provide RUS with adequate security necessary for the “automatic” lien accommodation, since the subsidiary's assets (financed through the lien accommodation) are not covered by the government's mortgage.

Comment summary. The respondents stated that RUS should consider including “non-plant” costs, such as transaction fees, working capital, and goodwill, associated with exchanges or purchases as eligible costs for lien accommodations under the regulation. They stated that these costs are typically contemplated in the purchase of existing systems as well as in new projects and that if private lenders were willing to finance these “non-plant” costs, RUS should not object to inclusion of these costs under the lien of the mortgage.

RUS response. The “soft costs” associated with the construction or acquisition of assets provide little or no tangible security. Accommodating payment of such costs under the lien of the mortgage would dilute the security of the other mortgage.

Comment summary. The respondents questioned the need for the certification from the borrower's CPA to the financial tests required in sections 1744(d)(5) and (e)(5), and stated that since RUS already had borrowers' CPA audits, certification should only be required when the audit had not yet been received by RUS.

RUS response. The CPA audit does not calculate nor attest to a borrower's achievement of TIER or Debt Service Coverage. The assurance provided by the CPA's certification of the borrower's achievement of the financial requirements is crucial to the “automatic” lien accommodation process. To expedite the process, borrowers may wish to have the CPA prepare the certification at the completion of the annual audit, thereby eliminating the need for further participation by the CPA.

Comment summary. The respondents objected to the provision that the financing agreement between the borrower and the private lender provide for the private lender to terminate advances on its loan to the borrower when the borrower is in default under the terms of its mortgage with RUS. They argue that this places an undue burden on the private lender that is contractually obligated to advance funds under the terms of its loan. The respondents stated that once the terms of the “automatic” lien accommodation have been met, RUS should take the risk for the facility financed. Further, the respondents stated that the burden should be placed on the borrower to cease the request for advances, not on the private lender.

RUS response. As a provision for obtaining an automatic lien accommodation (which does not require RUS approval when the criteria contained in the regulation are met), to protect the security for the Government's loans, the borrower should cease to incur additional private debt when it is in default on the Government's loans. Further, the respondents incorrectly view the burden as being placed on the private lender, and not on the borrower. The regulation clearly states that the financing agreement, a document prepared and executed prior to the advance of funds, contain the provision for termination of advance of funds upon request by RUS. In the event of a default, RUS would notify the borrower and the private lender so that they could comply with the termination of advance of funds provision. Therefore, notice to the private lender would not place the private lender under two inconsistent obligations.

Comment summary. Section 1744.30(e) pertains only to “wholly-owned” subsidiaries and is silent as to structures in which a borrower is a participant in a joint venture or partnership. The respondents argue that these types of projects are often undertaken for the mutual benefit of numerous telecommunications providers and that the regulation should make provision for these increasingly common ventures.

RUS response. At the present time, RUS believes that limiting the applicability of “automatic” lien accommodations to wholly-owned subsidiaries is prudent and in the best interest of protecting security for the Government's loans. Borrowers are, of course, not prevented from requesting approval for a lien accommodation under the traditional procedures for these types of projects. The comment is, however, beneficial and RUS will take it under advisement for future policy discussion.

Comment summary. The respondents argue that the financial tests in §§ 1744.30(e)(1) (TIER not less than 2.5 and DSC not less than 1.5) and (e)(3) (equity percentage not less than 45 percent) seem excessive and may result in most RUS or RTB borrowers failing to qualify for automatic lien accommodations when the assets are to be owned by a subsidiary.

RUS response. The financial tests required when the assets are to be owned by a subsidiary are more stringent, by design, and are intended to ensure that only the healthiest, strongest borrowers qualify, since there is no direct tie to assets being funded in relation to the security that RUS is giving up. By RUS' calculation, based on the most recent financial data available, 40% of RUS' telecommunications borrowers qualify. As noted before, in the case of a borrower flowing through the proceeds of the private lender debt to a subsidiary, RUS believes that the borrower should have sufficient financial strength to provide RUS with adequate security, since the subsidiary's assets (financed through the lien accommodation) are not subject to the lien of the borrower's mortgage with RUS.

Comment summary. The respondents inquired whether an equity investment in a subsidiary, as opposed to a loan, would be permissible. In addition, the respondents believed there may be some conflict in RUS' treatment of loans to subsidiaries as investments allowed under the borrower's current mortgage with RUS.

RUS response. Equity investments or contributions are clearly different from loans with defined repayment terms and contractual agreements. RUS intended to only provide for loans to the subsidiary. RUS further has provided, in section 1744.30(i)(2), that such loans, when made in accordance with the terms of this regulation, do not require RUS approval as investments in affiliated companies, thereby releasing the borrower from obtaining “double” approval for the same investment.

Comment summary. Clarification was requested with regard to § 1744.30(e)(6)(vii), regarding the submission, upon request by RUS, of the financing or guarantee agreement between the borrower and the subsidiary.

RUS response. This section is only intended to ensure that RUS has the right to review the terms and conditions, if merited, of the borrower's loan or guarantee of a loan to its subsidiary. With regard to loan guarantees, where the debt exists at the subsidiary level, and the borrower is guaranteeing the debt, automatic approval of a lien accommodation under this section would permit the guarantee of the debt without having it count against the borrower's allowable distribution of capital as contained in the borrower's mortgage with RUS.

Comment summary. The respondents requested that RUS provide acknowledgement for an automatic lien accommodation to the private lender in addition to the acknowledgement to the borrower.

RUS agrees and will provide such acknowledgment.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents in unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This document contains final amendments to the Excise Tax Procedural Regulations (26 CFR part 40) relating to the requirements for excise tax returns, payments, and deposits. On January 7, 2000, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that invited comments from the public on issues relating to the requirements for excise tax returns and deposits was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 1076). Several written comments were received and considered in drafting the proposed regulations. On February 16, 2001, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-106892-00) was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 10650). Written comments and requests for a public hearing were solicited.

Written comments responding to the notice were received from one commentator. The comments requested that the safe harbor rule based on look-back quarter liability be modified to be applicable: To each semimonthly period in a quarter if one-sixth of look-back quarter liability is deposited during that semimonthly period; when a taxpayer's liability includes new or reinstated taxes; and when a new legal entity includes a party that filed a Form 720 for the second preceding quarter. The final regulations do not adopt the requested modifications to the look-back safe harbor rule because doing so could significantly reduce the percentage of excise tax liability deposited without any corresponding reduction in the complexity of the deposit rules.

No public hearing was requested or held. After consideration of all of the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted without change by this Treasury decision.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and, because these regulations do not impose on small entities a collection of information requirement, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Susan Athy, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

(2) Safe harbor rules —(i) Applicability. The safe harbor rules of this paragraph (b)(2) are applied separately to taxes deposited under the alternative method provided in § 40.6302(c)-3 (alternative method taxes) and to the other taxes for which deposits are required under this section (regular method taxes).

(ii) Regular method taxes. Any person that made a return of tax reporting regular method taxes for the second preceding calendar quarter (the look-back quarter) is considered to have complied with the requirement of this part 40 for deposit of regular method taxes for the current calendar quarter if—

(A) The deposit of regular method taxes for each semimonthly period in the current calendar quarter is not less than 1/6 of the net tax liability for regular method taxes reported for the look-back quarter;

(B) Each deposit is made on time;

(C) The amount of any underpayment of regular method taxes is paid by the due date of the return; and

(D) The person's liability does not include any regular method tax that was not imposed at all times during the look-back quarter or a tax on a chemical not subject to tax at all times during the look-back quarter.

(iii) Alternative method taxes. Any person that made a return of tax reporting alternative method taxes for the look-back quarter is considered to have complied with the requirement of this part 40 for deposit of alternative method taxes for the current calendar quarter if—

(A) The deposit of alternative method taxes for each semimonthly period in the current calendar quarter is not less than 1/6 of the net tax liability for alternative method taxes reported for the look-back quarter;

(B) Each deposit is made on time;

(C) The amount of any underpayment of alternative method taxes is paid by the due date of the return; and

(D) The person's liability does not include any alternative method tax that was not imposed at all times during the look-back quarter and the month preceding the look-back quarter.

(iv) Modification for tax rate increase. The safe harbor rules of this paragraph (b)(2) do not apply to regular method taxes or alternative method taxes for the first and second calendar quarters beginning on or after the effective date of an increase in the rate of any tax to which this part 40 applies unless the deposit of those taxes for each semimonthly period in the calendar quarter is not less than 1/6 of the tax liability the person would have had with respect to those taxes for the look-back quarter if the increased rate of tax had been in effect for the look-back quarter.

(v) Failure to comply with deposit requirements. If a person fails to make deposits as required under this part 40, that failure may be reported to the appropriate IRS office and the IRS may withdraw the person's right to use the safe harbor rules of this paragraph (b)(2).

(c) Time to deposit —(1) In general. The deposit of tax for any semimonthly period must be made by the 14th day of the following semimonthly period unless such day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia in which case the immediately preceding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia is treated as the 14th day. Thus, generally, the deposit of tax for the first semimonthly period in a month is due by the 29th day of that month and the deposit of tax for the second semimonthly period in a month is due by the 14th day of the following month.

(2) Exceptions. See § 40.6302(c)-2 for the special rules for September. See § 40.6302(c)-3 for the special rules for deposits under the alternative method.

(d) Remittance of deposits —(1) Deposits by federal tax deposit coupon. A completed Form 8109, “Federal Tax Deposit Coupon,” must accompany each deposit. The deposit must be remitted, in accordance with the instructions applicable to the form, to a financial institution authorized as a depositary for federal taxes (as provided in 31 CFR part 203).

(2) Deposits by electronic funds transfer. For the requirement to deposit excise taxes by electronic funds transfer, see § 31.6302-1(h) of this chapter. A taxpayer not required to deposit by electronic funds transfer pursuant to § 31.6302-1(h) of this chapter remains subject to the rules of this paragraph (d).

(e) Exceptions —(1) Taxes excluded. No deposit is required in the case of the taxes imposed by—

(i) Section 4042 (relating to fuel used on inland waterways);

(ii) Section 4161 (relating to sport fishing equipment and bows and arrow components);

(iii) Section 4682(h) (relating to floor stocks tax on ozone-depleting chemicals); and

(iv) Section 48.4081-3(b)(1)(iii) of this chapter (relating to certain removals of gasohol from refineries).

(2) One-time filings. No deposit is required in the case of any taxes reportable on a one-time filing (as defined in § 40.6011(a)-2(b)).

(3) De minimis exception. For any calendar quarter, no deposit is required if the net tax liability for the quarter does not exceed $2,500.

(f) Effective date. This section is applicable with respect to deposits that relate to calendar quarters beginning on or after October 1, 2001.

Par. 11. Section 40.6302(c)-2 is revised to read as follows:

On October 12, 2000, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-108553-00) under section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in the Federal Register (65 FR 60822). The proposed regulations add group trusts consisting of qualified plan trusts and IRA trusts, as described in Rev. Rul. 81-100 (1981-1 C.B. 326), and certain investment trusts to the categories of trusts that may use the safe harbor in § 301.7701-7(d)(1)(iv) of the Procedure and Administration Regulations relating to the application of the control test of section 7701(a)(30)(E). The proposed regulations also modify the safe harbor in § 301.7701-7(d)(1)(iv) to clarify that employee benefit trusts and investment trusts identified in the regulations are deemed to satisfy the control test if United States trustees control all of the substantial decisions of the trust made by the trustees of the trust. No one requested to speak at the public hearing scheduled for January 31, 2001. Accordingly, the public hearing was canceled on January 26, 2001 (66 FR 7867). Comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received and are addressed in the following Explanation and Summary of Comments. This document finalizes the proposed regulations without change.

Two commentators were concerned about United States investors in widely held fixed investment trusts that are outside the safe harbor provided by § 301.7701-7(d)(1)(iv)(I) and therefore are treated as foreign trusts. These commentators suggested that United States investors in such trusts should not be subject to reporting under section 6048 and to the corresponding penalties in section 6677 for failure to comply with the section 6048 reporting requirements. A guidance project under section 671 concerning reporting requirements for all widely held fixed investment trusts is currently under consideration. Accordingly, these regulations do not specifically address this issue.

Section 1022(i)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93-406 (88 Stat. 829) (September 2, 1974), provides for tax exemption for certain trusts created or organized in Puerto Rico that form part of a pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan. Section 1022(i)(2) and § 1.401(a)-50 of the Income Tax Regulations generally provide that the administrator of such a trust may elect to have the trust treated as a trust created or organized in the United States for purposes of section 401(a). In light of the changes made to section 7701(a)(30) in the Small Business Job Protection Act, Public Law 104-188 (110 Stat. 1755) (August 20, 1996), and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Public Law 105-34 (111 Stat. 788) (August 5, 1997), and the ensuing regulations, some taxpayers have expressed concerns regarding the continuing application of sections 1022(i)(1) and (2) and § 1.401-50 to a pension trust created or organized in Puerto Rico that is not a domestic trust within the meaning of section 7701(a)(30). Because the application of these provisions is not restricted to trusts that are domestic trusts within the meaning of section 7701(a)(30), the 1996 and 1997 amendments to section 7701(a)(30) and the ensuing regulations do not affect the application of these provisions.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on the regulations' impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is James A. Quinn of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

The proposed rule was published on December 5, 2000, at 65 FR 75897. No comments were received. Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”. The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby determines that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (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 entitlements, grants, or 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 this Executive Order.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose 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 of 1974.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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.

The proposed rule was published on October 13, 2000, at 65 FR 60900. No comments were received during the sixty-day public comment period. Therefore, DLA is adopting the amendments.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby determines that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (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 entitlements, 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 this Executive order.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose 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 of 1974.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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.

(4) Establish training programs for all individuals with public affairs duties, and all other personnel whose duties require access to or contact with systems of records affected by the Privacy Act. Initial training will be given to new employees and military members upon assignment. Refresher training will be provided annually or more frequently if conditions warrant.

The proposed rules were published on September 6, 2000, at 65 FR 53962, and on January 8, 2001, at 66 FR 1280, respectively. No comments were received for either proposed rule.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby determines that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (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 or entitlements, 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 this Executive order.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose 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 of 1974.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies that the Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard had insufficient advance notice to publish an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments with regard to this event.

On August 18, 2001, at approximately 9:30 p.m. a fireworks and pyrotechnic display will be launched from a barge moored to the end of dock 26 at the Cleveland Port Authority. Spectators are expected to view the display from the adjacent Cleveland Browns football stadium, and private and commercial spectator vessels are expected in Cleveland Harbor. A safety zone will be in effect on August 18, 2001, from 9 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. The safety zone will include the navigable waters of Cleveland Harbor: East Basin, Eastern Section bounded by a line beginning at coordinates 41°30′29″N, 081°42′08″W; continuing north to coordinates 41°30′44″N, 081°42′19″W; then southwest along the breakwall to 41°30′34″N, 081°42′41″W then proceeding southeast to 41°30′19″N, 081°42′26″W, and then along the shoreline back to the beginning. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

This temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted it from review under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040 February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) the Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their respective fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. For the same reasons set forth in the above regulatory evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et esq. ) that this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Safety Zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: this rule will be in effect for approximately one hour. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effectiveness and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule, and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed in ADDRESSES in this preamble.

This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. A rule with tribal implications has a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this regulation and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing safety zones to control vessel movement around the locations of the launch platforms will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risk.

The safety zone will encompass all waters surrounding the fireworks launch platform bounded by the arc of a circle with a 300-yard radius with its center in approximate position 43°35′03″ N, 083°53′06″ W (off of Bay City Aggregate). The geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, and therefore minor, if any, impacts to mariners will result.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of one of the activated safety zones.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect from 9 p.m. until 12 midnight the day of the event; and vessel traffic may be allowed to pass through the safety zone under Coast Guard escort with the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Saginaw River by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Detroit (see ADDRESSES ). Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

On June 28, 2001, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (66 FR 34380), proposing to establish temporary safety zones for the recovery and relocation operation for the Japanese Fisheries High School Training Vessel EHIME MARU. We received no comments on the proposal. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exist for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Due to the unprecedented and urgent nature of the Navy's relocation and recovery operation, the effective dates for this zone were not known in sufficient time to make this rule effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

On February 9, 2001, the Japanese Fisheries High School Training Vessel EHIME MARU was struck by the submarine USS GREENEVILLE (SSN 772) approximately 9 nautical miles south of Diamond Head on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The EHIME MARU sank in approximately 2,000 feet of water. At the time of the sinking, 26 of the 35 crewmembers were successfully rescued. An extensive search failed to locate additional personnel and it is assumed that some, or all, of the nine missing crewmembers were trapped inside the vessel. The EHIME MARU is resting upright on the seafloor at position 21°-04.8′N, 157°-49.5′W. The­ U.S. Navy plans to recover crewmembers, personal effects, and certain unique characteristic components from the EHIME MARU. In its present location, the vessel is beyond diver capability to safely conduct recovery operations. Therefore, the current recovery plan calls for use of a specially equipped offshore construction vessel to lift the EHIME MARU from the bottom and transport the vessel to a shallow water work site. The EHIME MARU will then be placed back on the seafloor, in approximately 115 feet of water, where Navy divers will enter the hull and attempt to recover crewmembers, personal effects, and uniquely characteristic components found inside. To limit impact on the marine environment, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, loose debris, and any other hazardous materials will be removed to the maximum extent practicable at the shallow water work site. The hull will then be lifted back off the ocean floor and moved to a deep-water relocation site approximately 13 nautical miles south of Barbers Point on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. To support the vessel relocation and crewmember recovery operation, the Coast Guard will establish safety zones as follows:

1. A fixed safety zone, with a radius of 1 nautical mile, centered at 21°-04.8′N, 157°-49.5′W, the present location of the EHIME MARU.

2. A moving safety zone, with a radius of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect during transit of the EHIME MARU and associated recovery vessels from the present location of the EHIME MARU to the shallow water work site, located within the Naval Defensive Sea Area at approximate position 21°-17.5′N, 157°-56.4′W.

3. A moving safety zone, with a radius of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect during transit of the EHIME MARU and associated recovery vessels from the shallow water work site to the deep water relocation site at approximate position 21°-05.0′N, 157°-07.0′W.

4. A fixed safety zone, with a radius of 1 nautical mile, centered at the coordinates of the deep water relocation site, will be in effect until the EHIME MARU is placed back on the ocean floor. The portion of the safety zone extending beyond the territorial boundary is advisory only.

The safety zones will be enforced sequentially, the exact dates will be dependent on the phase of the operation. These safety zones are effective August 1, 2001, and will remain in effect until the operation ends November 15, 2001. The purpose of these safety zones is to protect vessels and mariners from hazards associated with vessel relocation and crewmember recovery operations of the Japanese Fisheries High School Training Vessel EHIME MARU. Since oil spills may result due to damaged and ruptured fuel tanks, the safety zones will also protect vessels and mariners from the hazards of any pollution response operations that may be necessary. Entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Honolulu, HI. Representatives of the Captain of the Port Honolulu will enforce the safety zones. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal agencies.

This temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The U.S. Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this action to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the short duration of the zone and the limited geographic area affected by it.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this temporary rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small business impacts are anticipated due to the small size of the zones and the short duration of the safety zones in any one area.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The U. S. Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, and has determined this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The U. S. Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this action and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and (3) all other major non-CTG rules were due by November 15, 1992. The Pennsylvania SIP has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTG's.

On February 4, 1994, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NO X and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. The February 4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify certain presumptive NO X RACT requirements. In the Pittsburgh area, a major source of VOC is defined as one having the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more, and a major source of NO X is defined as one having the potential to emit 100 tpy or more. Pennsylvania's RACT regulations require sources, in the Pittsburgh area, that have the potential to emit 50 tpy or more of VOC and sources which have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NO X comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NO X sources. For other major NO X sources, and all major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a “generic” RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

On March 23, 1998 EPA granted conditional limited approval to the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations (63 FR 13789). In that action, EPA stated that the conditions of its approval would be satisfied once the Commonwealth either (1) certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to PADEP; or (2) demonstrates that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking. On April 22, 1999, PADEP made the required submittal to EPA certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval of its VOC and NO X RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NO X RACT determinations as SIP revisions and making the demonstration described as condition 2, above. EPA determined that Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 submittal satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998. On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking action removing the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. The regulation currently retains its limited approval status. Once EPA has approved the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP to satisfy the conditional approval for subject sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties; the limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations shall convert to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area.

On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and imposes RACT for several sources of NO X and VOCs. This rulemaking pertains only to the RACT determination made for the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility, a major source of VOC and NO X located in the Pittsburgh area. The RACT determinations submitted on July 1, 1997 for other sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The submittal for the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility consists of Plan Approval Order and Agreement upon Consent (CO) No. 260 in which RACT has been established and imposed by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). The PADEP submitted CO No. 260 on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision.

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The facility produces stainless steel and silicon strip steel from basic raw materials and metallic scrap. The facility consists of two basic oxygen furnaces (BOF), four electric arc furnaces (EAF), three electric induction furnaces (EIF), an argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel, twenty-seven soaking pits and a large number of various metallurgical furnaces and related equipment. The facility's potential NO X and VOC emissions were 1,613 tons per year and 1,371 tons per year, respectively. The ACHD specified RACT requirements for the facility in CO No. 260 with the effective date of December 19, 1996. Most of the NO X and VOC emitting installations and processes at this source are subject to specific SIP-approved, presumptive RACT requirements. Other installations and processes are subject to the generic provisions of Pennsylvania's RACT regulation. The NO X and VOC emitting installations/processes and the RACT determinations are described below.

The NO X emitting sources at the facility are comprised largely of BOFs, EAFs, and AOD vessel, soaking pits, and a large number of various natural gas fired heaters and preheating/heating/ reheating and annealing furnaces with rated heat inputs values ranging from less than 20 MMBTU/hr to no more than 50 MMBTU/hr with the exception of the three larger units: the Salem and Rust Reheat furnaces and the Hot Band Normalizing furnace with a rated heat input higher than 50 MMBTU/hr. Additional NO X emitting sources at the facility are certain pieces of the equipment at the annealing and pickling (A&P) lines Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and two gas fired boilers with a maximum heat input rate of 34 MMBTU/hr each.

(1) The BOFs are barrel-shaped furnaces lined with refractories. The maximum production rate is 140 tons of steel per hour, combined. The furnaces are used to refine a charge of hot metal and metallic scrap by high-purity oxygen blown onto the bath at supersonic velocity through the oxygen lance. Various fluxes and alloying materials are added during the refining process to produce molten steel of the required purity and chemical composition.

(2) The EAFs are refractory-lined furnaces are used to melt and partially refine a metal charge consisting of scrap materials, fluxes, and various alloying elements with maximum production rates ranging from 15 to 26 tons of steel per hour. The sufficient heating is generated inside the furnace by electrical current flowing between the three graphite electrodes and through the metallic charge. The EAFs largely transfer the generation of NO X emissions from the steelmaking facility to an electric generating unit at a utility plant where those emissions are controlled.

(3) The AOD vessel is a refractory-lined furnace used in the ladle-metallurgical argon-oxygen decarburization process to refine stainless steel outside the EAF. During the oxygen-argon blowing, fluxes and ferro silicon are added to the furnace. Immediately after the decarburization blow, molten steel is argon-stirred to achieve the desired chemical and temperature homogenization of the material.

(4) The soaking pits and heating/reheating furnaces are used to bring ingots and semi-finished steel products to a uniform temperature in order to make them suitable for hot working. Annealing furnaces are used to refine the steel grain structure, to relief stresses induced by hot or cold working, and to alter the mechanical properties of steel in order to improve its machinability. Heat treatment of stainless and silicon steels is conducted at a slow rate and relatively low temperatures to minimize thermal stresses and to avoid distortion and cracking.

The major VOC emitting sources at the facility are comprised of two BOFs, four EAFs, AOD, scrap preheaters, various hot and cold rolling mills, and sources of fugitive VOC emissions associated with parts cleaners and miscellaneous paints.

(1) BOFs and VOD vessel: The sources generate only modest NO X emissions as a result of combustion of the waste off-gases consisting chiefly of carbon monoxide. Modest VOC emissions are produced during charging of the BOF when the vessel is occasionally charged with scrap contaminated with oily residues. According to EPA publication “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions from Iron and Steel Mills” (EPA-453/R-94-065), there are no technically and/or economically feasible control options currently available to control NO X and VOC emissions from such sources, largely due to substantial fluctuations in the off-gas flow and temperatures. However, due to specific conditions at the Brackenridge facility (the presence of a wet scrubber) some post-process controls could be technically feasible. Accordingly, a case-by-case RACT analysis was performed for the sources. The control options reviewed in the analysis included, but were not limited to, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and flue gas recirculation (FGR) for NO X emissions and thermal oxidation, absorption, carbon adsorption, catalytic oxidation, inertial separation and condensation for VOC emissions. The ACHD concluded that the only technically and economically feasible option to impose as RACT for both NO X and VOCs is that this equipment operate and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good engineering and pollution control practices.

(2) EAFs: As noted above, the EAF largely transfers the generation of NO X emissions from the steelmaking facility to an electric generating unit and thus does not represent a source of substantial NO X emissions. Modest VOC emissions are produced during charging of the EAF when the furnace is occasionally charged with stainless steel scrap contaminated with oily residues. There are no known cases where NO X or VOC controls have been retrofitted on existing EAFs. Nevertheless, a case-by-case RACT analysis for the source was performed to review various options such as SCR, NSCR, and FGR to control NO X emissions and thermal oxidation, absorption, carbon adsorption, and catalytic oxidation to control VOC emissions. The ACHD concluded that only technically and economically feasible option to impose as RACT for both NO X and VOCs is that this equipment operate and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good engineering and pollution control practices.

(3) EIFs: These installations do not emit NO X or VOCs.

(4) Salem and Rust Reheat Furnaces: Various NO X control options such as SCR, SNCR, FGR, Low NO X burners (LNB), and Low Excess Air (LEA) were considered for the furnaces. The ACHD has examined whether or not those options were technologically feasible and economically viable control methods. The ACHD determined that LEA is the only option both technically and economically feasible. Therefore, ACHD imposed LEA as NO X RACT for these emission units. The ACHD limited NO X emissions from each of these furnaces to 0.15 lbs/MMBTU and to 175 tpy and 60 tpy for the Salem and Rust furnaces, respectively. Various VOC control options such as thermal oxidation, absorption, carbon absorption, catalytic oxidation, thermal separation and condensation were considered for the furnaces. The ACHD has examined whether or not these options were technologically and economically feasible control methods. The ACHD determined that none of these control options are technologically or economically reasonable for these furnaces. The ACHD concluded that a requirement to operate and maintain these installations in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good engineering and pollution control practices constitutes RACT.

(5) Hot Band Normalizing Furnace: The ACHD considered whether or not the NO X and VOC control options analyzed for the Salem and Rust Reheat furnaces were technologically feasible and economically viable control methods for this furnace. The ACHD concluded that a requirement to operate and maintain these installations in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good engineering and pollution control practices constitutes RACT.

(6) Boilers NO. 1 and 2: The ACHD has determined that based upon the gross heat input rate of 34 MMBTU/hr, the units are subject to the presumptive SIP-approved NO X RACT requirements.

(7) Miscellaneous Painting/Coating Activities: The ACHD has concluded that utilization of the compliant paints/coatings with a maximum VOC content not to exceed specified limits combined with a requirement to maintain all pertinent records will constitute RACT requirements for those activities.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP submittal for the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility because CO No. 260 establishes and imposes RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations and also imposes record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by PADEP on behalf of ACHD to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility. 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 September 24, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 10, 2001. 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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. 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). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for one named source.

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 9, 2001. 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 approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and NO X from the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation's Brackenridge facility may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:

(1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and (3) all major non-CTG sources. The regulations imposing RACT for these non-CTG major sources were to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992 and compliance required by May of 1995.

The Pennsylvania SIP already includes approved RACT regulations for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NO X and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. The February 4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify certain presumptive NO X RACT requirements. In the Pittsburgh area, a major source of VOC is defined as one having the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more, and a major source of NO X is defined as one having the potential to emit 100 tpy or more. Pennsylvania's RACT regulations require sources, in the Pittsburgh area, that have the potential to emit 50 tpy or more of VOC and sources which have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NO X comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NO X sources. For other major NO X sources, and all major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a “generic” RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

On March 23, 1998 EPA granted conditional limited approval to the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations (63 FR 13789). In that action, EPA stated that the conditions of its approval would be satisfied once the Commonwealth either (1) certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to PADEP; or (2) demonstrate that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking. On April 22, 1999, PADEP made the required submittal to EPA certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval of its VOC and NO X RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NO X RACT determinations as SIP revisions and making the demonstration described as condition 2, above. EPA determined that Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 submittal satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998. On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking action removing the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. The regulation currently retains its limited approval status. Once EPA has approved the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP to satisfy the conditional approval for subject sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties; the limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations shall convert to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area.

It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO X emissions in the form of a NO X cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the OTR. That rule's compliance date is May 1999. That regulation was approved as SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted regulations to satisfy Phase I of the NO X SIP call and submitted those regulations to EPA for SIP approval. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I consists of the adoption of Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction and amendments to Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants. On May 29, 2001 (66 FR 29064), EPA proposed approval of the Commonwealth's NO X SIP call rule SIP submittal. EPA expects to publish the final rulemaking in the Federal Register in the near future. Federal approval of a case-by-case RACT determination for a major source of NO X in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

On July 1, 1997 and April 9, 1999, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several major sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to the Kosmos Cement Company and the Armstrong Cement & Supply Company. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's SIP submittals consist of enforcement order (EO) 208 issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to the Kosmos Cement Company and operating permit (OP) 10-028 issued by PADEP to the Armstrong Cement & Supply Company which impose VOC and/or NO X RACT requirements for each source. These two sources are located in the Pittsburgh area.

The Kosmos Cement Company (Kosmos) is a cement manufacturing facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kosmos is a major source of both NO X and VOCs. On December 19, 1996, ACHD issued EO 208 to impose RACT on Kosmos. The PADEP submitted EO 208, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Kosmos produces cement in one long wet process rotary kiln. There are no other NO X or VOC emitting units at this facility.

Enforcement order 208 requires that the NO X emissions from the cement kiln not exceed 8.0 lbs of NO X per ton of clinker and 2105 tpy. Enforcement order 208 also requires that the VOC emissions from the cement kiln not exceed 0.4 lbs of VOC per ton of clinker and 97 tpy. Under EO 208, Kosmos must operate the cement kiln with minimal excess oxygen at all times. Under EO 208, Kosmos must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Under EO 208, Kosmos is required to conduct emissions testing at least once every two years in accordance with any applicable EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the County's air pollution control regulations. Under EO 208, Kosmos must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with the EO 208 and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Record keeping requirements shall include the following: measurements of kiln temperatures and oxygen contents; fuel type and amount of fuel used; and amounts of raw material used and the amount of clinker produced. All records shall be maintained for at least two years.

The Kosmos Cement Company is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

Armstrong Cement & Supply Company (Armstrong) is a cement manufacturer located in Cabot, Pennsylvania. Armstrong is a major source of NO X . Armstrong has two wet kilns for the production of Portland cement. On March 31, 1999, PADEP issued OP 10-028 to impose RACT for these cement kilns as process modifications to increase thermal efficiency in each kiln.

Under OP 10-028 , the NO X emissions from the kilns shall not exceed 6.62 lbs per ton of clinker (6.62 lbs/ton). Compliance is to be demonstrated thorough annual stack testing in accordance with 25 Pa Code Chapter 139 as provided in condition 8 of OP 10-028. Armstrong must maintain daily clinker production records, on site, in accordance with Pa Code section 129.95. Armstrong must properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

Armstrong Cement Company is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because ACHD and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The ACHD and PADEP has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NO X RACT for the Kosmos Cement Company and the Armstrong Cement & Supply Company. 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 Septebmer 24, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 10, 2001. 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. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for two named sources.

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 September 24, 2001. 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 approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and/or NO X from the Kosmos Cement Company and the Armstrong Cement & Supply Company located in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area of Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The information in this section is organized as follows:

After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on May 11, 2001 to exclude the Tenneco waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under §§ 261.31 and 261.32 (see 66 FR 24085). The EPA is finalizing:

(1) The decision to grant Tenneco's petition to have its wastewater treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued monitoring conditions; and

(2) The decision to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software, which includes the EPACMTP fate and transport model, to evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.

Tenneco's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous wastes. Tenneco does not believe the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it as a hazardous waste. Tenneco also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In making the final delisting determination, EPA also evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in §§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If the EPA had found, based on this review, the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The EPA believes the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria. EPA's final decision to delist waste from Tenneco's facility is based on the information submitted by Tenneco in its petition, including descriptions of the stabilization techniques and analytical data from the Paragould, AR facility.

This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only if the requirements described in Table 1 of part 261 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied. This is a one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized waste water treatment sludge.

Tenneco currently stores the petitioned waste (stabilized waste water treatment sludge) generated in containment vaults on-site at its facility. Tenneco will dispose of the sludge in a Subtitle D solid waste landfill in Arkansas.

This rule is effective August 9, 2001. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. This reduction in existing requirements also provides a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.

Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.

EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If Tenneco transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, Tenneco must obtain delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State.

A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous wastes, wastes the generator believes should not be considered hazardous under RCRA.

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, § 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator-specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.

Petitioners must provide sufficient information to the EPA to allow the EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

On September 8, 2000, Tenneco petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, a waste by-product (stabilized sludge from the wastewater treatment plant) which falls under the classification of listed waste because of the “derived from” rule in RCRA 40 CFR 261.3. Specifically, in its petition, Tenneco Automotive, located in Paragould, Arkansas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge from electroplating operations, excavated from the Finch Road Landfill and currently stored in containment cells. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with § 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the “derived from” rule). The waste code of the constituents of concern is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).

Specifically, in its petition, Tenneco requested that EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge.

To support its petition, Tenneco submitted:

(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management practices;

(2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs;

(3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals;

(4) Results from total oil and grease analyses and pH measurements.

The EPA received public comments on the May 11, 2001, proposal from General Motors (GM).

All terms and equations used in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) program are discussed in the Delisting Technical Support Document (DTSD). All abbreviations, acronyms, and variables are listed in Chapter 1, pages x-xx of the DTSD. The DTSD is updated to reflect revisions and modifications to risk algorithms and methodology. The Agency encourages all users and reviewers to comment on the technical support documentation and continues to improve the clarity and transparency of the DTSD. The term Cw is not used in the document. Without specific information to the page location/screen location of the term referenced in the question above, no further response can be provided.

Information on the Risk and Hazard Assessment can be found in Chapter 4 of the DTSD. Discussion of criteria and quantification of risk are discussed in this Chapter.

The Delisting Program in its history has never focused on site-specific conditions. It has since its inception been a program specifically for waste generators. A review of the 40 CFR 260.22 indicates that these are petitions to amend part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility. The Agency is not currently using the model to predict site-specific results. Since disposal of the delisted waste may occur at any Subtitle C or D landfill in the United States, site-specific considerations are not usually given. The DRAS model is based on national averages of the site specific factors and is intended to model a reasonable worst case scenario for disposal.

The Agency continues to review chemical-specific parameter data. Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS analyses. However, as explained above, in delisting analyses, site specific characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and volume) are not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given for many parameters used in risk. The Agency can not fully evaluate how release mechanisms and exposure scenarios may be impacted because the final disposal location remains undefined.

The DRAS provides the forward-calculated risk level and back-calculated allowable waste concentration for each exposure pathway, thereby permitting the user to determine which pathway drives the risk for a given chemical. These analyses are currently provided for the user by the DRAS program on the Chemical-Specific Results screen.

The DRAS model is intended to model a reasonable worst case model and is based on national averages of these factors. This is the same assumption used for the EPACML.

The DRAS employs standard risk assessment default parameters that are accepted throughout the Agency in risk analyses (i.e., residential exposure @ 350 days/yr, selection of the 90th percentile). These default standards are described and listed in Appendix A of the DTSD.

The DRAS does employ a conservative approach to exposure assessment by assuming the receptor may be exposed to both the most sensitive groundwater pathway and the most sensitive surface exposure pathway. The Agency has no way of knowing that this situation will not occur and therefore deems it prudent to protect for this condition by adding risks. Again, the Agency has no way of knowing the direction of media flow and must assume that all media flow may move toward the receptor. The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill volume data and other data from the 1987 landfill survey report is not valid. When updated data are available, they will be incorporated into the analyses.

The groundwater fate and transport model used by the Agency to determine first order decay and other processes is the EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). This model has been peer reviewed and received an excellent review from the Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA has proposed use of this SAB-reviewed model and no convincing comments to the contrary have been received.

Attached to the Delisting Risk Assessment Software is a Technical Support Document which explains the risk algorithms and documentation of the decisions made in development of the model. Publication costs prohibit the inclusion of all this information into the Federal Register notice but it is readily available in both the Technical Support Document and at the Region 6 Delisting page ( www.epa.gov/earth1/r6/pd-o/pd-o.htm ). However, the Agency believes that the Delisting Risk Assessment Software is no more complex than use of the EPACML for delisting, just because the calculations have been computerized make them no more difficult to understand than the EPACML. Similar regression models were developed for the DRAS. The risk pathways for surface water and air volatilization are evaluated by the same equations used previously in the delisting program. And finally, the pathways for showering and dermal contact are equations which are commonly used in risk assessments performed for cleanups and site assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known as Superfund and other programs.

The model has been peer reviewed by EPA risk assessors and EPA's Office of Research and Development scientists. The public has the opportunity to comment on the use of the DRAS model each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS model. The Agency is currently using the same level of public review used by the delisting program for use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfills in 1991. The model as modified for the delisting program was promulgated in conjunction with its use in evaluating the Reynolds Metals Delisting petition. See, 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991). No challenge was made to procedures for promulgating the use of the EPACML in delisting evaluations.

GM summarizes its comments on the DRAS by stating that (1) EPA is proposing significant changes to the methodology it uses to evaluate delisting petitions. It appears the changes would apply to all future delisting petitions. (2) The proposed changes are complex. (3) It appears the proposed changes would apply in all USEPA Regions. (4) The proposed changes may include elements of the still-draft, unpromulgated, and controversial HWIR waste model. It is inappropriate and contrary to law and the Administrative Procedures Act to use a model prior to public notice and comment. (5) No Federal Register notice has been given to clearly indicate the EPA plans to change the way it reviews and evaluates delisting petitions. Instead, references to the changes in the model have been made as part of proposals to delist specific waste streams. (6) If EPA is changing the model it uses to evaluate delisting petitions (from the EPACML to the DRAS model) USEPA should provide specific and clear public notification of this intent. The risk assessment methodology for delisting that has been used since 1991 should still apply until public review period is completed.

The EPA is following the same notice provided for changing from the VHS model to the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML). See 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991. The public has the opportunity to comment on the DRAS model each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS model. General Motors has not stated any reason why the DRAS model is not appropriate for use in evaluating the risk associated with the Tenneco Delisting. EPA will consider use of alternatives model for assessing risk if the comments received show that another model is more appropriate under the circumstances.

General Motors states that use of model with public review and comment is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and law. Opportunity for public review and comment is provided for each delisting petition. Comments are requested for each delisting decision regarding the decision to delist the waste and use of a model to assess the risk posed to human health and the environment. Each time the model is used, just as with the use of the EPACML, the public and interested stakeholders can comment on the appropriateness of the use. In fact, each proposed rule for approving a delisting proposes the use of a model in the evaluation of risk and asks for comment. Examples can be seen in the Federal Register for the EPACML as well as the DRAS. See, 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 64 FR 44867 (August 18, 1999), and 65 FR 75641 (December 4, 2000). Any petitioner or interested party may suggest more appropriate evaluation tools for predicting risk. Thus, EPA believes that adequate public notice has been provided and the APA has not been violated.

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an “assessment of the potential costs and benefits” for all “significant” regulatory actions. The final to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional impact therefore, due to this final rule. Therefore, this proposal would not be a significant regulation and no cost/benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required however if the Administrator or delegated representative certifies the rule will not have any impact on a small entities.

This rule if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds that this final delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the final delisting does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.

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 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, the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.” This rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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 this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13084, 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 meaningful and timely input” in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This 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.

Under section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the Agency is directed 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, business practices, etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.

This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards in developing this final rule.

This is a summary of the Commission's Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 01-150, FCC 01-205, adopted July 12, 2001 and released July 20, 2001. The complete text of this Declaratory Ruling is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.

1. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarifies its rules governing requests for authorization pursuant to section 214 of the Act to transfer domestic interstate transmission lines through an acquisition of corporate control. Under section 214, applicants must obtain Commission authorization before constructing, operating, or acquiring domestic interstate transmission lines. The Commission, in § 63.01, granted blanket authority to domestic interstate communications common carriers to provide domestic interstate services and to construct, acquire, and operate domestic transmission lines. The blanket authority in § 63.01, however, expressly does not apply to acquisitions of corporate control. When an acquisition of corporate control is involved, carriers must file a section 214 application with the Commission and obtain Commission approval prior to consummating a proposed transaction.

2. The Commission, in the Declaratory Ruling, clarifies that non-dominant carriers are required to file applications and obtain Commission approval before consummating a transaction involving an acquisition of corporate control. In particular, there is nothing either in the Commission's previous orders or the plain language of § 63.01 to support the contention that acquisitions of corporate control involving non-dominant carriers are covered under the blanket authority of § 63.01. Connecting carriers, as defined in the Act, are not subject to section 214 when engaging in acquisitions of corporate control.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Declaratory Ruling. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Declaratory Ruling provided in section IV(C) of the Declaratory Ruling. The Commission will send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

2. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarifies that connecting carriers are not required to file section 214 applications for acquisitions of corporate control, and that resellers and other non-dominant carriers must file applications for acquisitions of corporate control.

3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Declaratory Ruling is contained in sections 2, 4, 201, 214, 303 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 201-202, 303 and 403, and §§ 1.1, 1.2, and 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and 1.411.

4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking, if adopted. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. See 15 U.S.C. 632.

5. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service report. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission has indicated that there are 4,144 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

6. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing “Radiotelephone Communications” and “Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone” to be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. See 13 CFR 121.201; Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987). Further, this analysis discusses the total estimated number of telephone companies falling within the two categories and the number of small businesses in each. This analysis also attempts to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.

7. The Commission includes small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this present Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard ( e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” See 15 U.S.C 632(a)(1). The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. See Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999); 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3); 13 CFR 121.102(b). The Commission, therefore, included small incumbent LECs in this Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this Regulatory Flexibility Act action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-Regulatory Flexibility Act contexts.

8. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (“Census Bureau”) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. See U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (“1992 Census”). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.” See 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.

9. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. See 1992 Census, at Firm Size 1-123. According to the SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that fewer than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies are small entities or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking. The Commission further notes that some of these small entities may be “connecting carriers,” as defined in section 3(11) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 153(11), and would not be subject to section 214 or § 63.01 when engaging in an acquisition of corporate control and thus would not require prior Commission approval to consummate a transaction involving an acquisition of corporate control.

10. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4813. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 1,348 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that fewer than 1,348 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

11. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 171 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 171 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

12. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 212 CAP/competitive LECs carriers and 10 other LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 212 small entity CAPs and 10 other LECs that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

13. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of operator services. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 24 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of operator service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 24 small entity operator service providers that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

14. Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to pay telephone operators. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 615 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 615 small entity pay telephone operators that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

15. Resellers (including debit card providers). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813; 1997 NAICS 51331. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 388 toll and 54 local entities reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone service. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 388 small toll entity resellers and 54 small local entity resellers that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

16. Toll-Free 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, and 877 numbers in use. See FCC, CCB Industry Analysis Division, FCC Releases Study on Telephone Trends, Tbls. 21.2, 21.3 and 21.4 (February 19, 1999). According to our most recent data, at the end of January 1999, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,692,955; the number of 888 numbers that had been assigned was 7,706,393; and the number of 877 numbers assigned was 1,946,538. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are fewer than 7,692,955 small entity 800 subscribers, fewer than 7,706,393 small entity 888 subscribers, and fewer than 1,946,538 small entity 877 subscribers may be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

17. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

18. In this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarifies that connecting carriers are not required to file section 214 applications for acquisitions of corporate control.

19. The Commission offers this clarification of an existing rule in order to reduce the regulatory burden for connecting carriers, including small entities. The Commission believes that by expressly articulating that connecting carriers are free from a specific section 214 filing requirement, the Commission has provided small entities the least burdensome of filing requirements, i.e., carriers who were once uncertain of their obligations will now find it unnecessary to assume the costs of filing section 214 applications for acquisitions of corporate control. The Commission notes that any other interpretation of section 2(b) of the Act would increase and not decrease compliance and reporting requirements for connecting carriers, including small entities.

20. Moreover, in this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission also clarifies that resellers and non-dominant carriers are not exempt from § 63.01 and must file applications for acquisitions of corporate control. As the Commission explains in section II(B), there is nothing in either the 1999 Streamlining Order or the plain language of § 63.01 to support the contention that acquisitions of corporate control involving non-dominant carriers are covered under the blanket authority of § 63.01. Therefore, the Commission clarifies that non-dominant carriers are required to file applications and obtain Commission approval before consummating a transaction involving an acquisition of corporate control. Any alternative approach would violate an existing rule and frustrate the Commission's ability to perform its statutory obligation of considering the public interest in connection with proposed acquisitions of domestic interstate common carriers, including non-dominant carriers.

21. None.

1. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2, 4(i)-(j), 201, 214, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 152, 154(i)-(j), 201, 214, and 303(r), that the Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 01-150 IS ADOPTED.

2. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Declaratory Ruling, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

3. Pursuant to sections 2, 4(i)-(j), 201, 214, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 152, 154(i)-(j), 201, 214, and 303(r), that the Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 01-150 SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE August 9, 2001.

The FAR provides that agencies should specify whether investigations under FAR 22.1503(e) should be referred to the Inspector General, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of the Treasury. This final rule provides that all such investigations shall be referred to NASA's Inspector General.

NASA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) because this rule only affects internal administrative procedures. However, NASA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected NFS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

NASA is adopting as final with changes the interim rule published in the September 11, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 54813-54816) and as corrected in the September 28, 2000, Federal Register (64 FR 58231). The OMB Bulletin on Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements prescribes financial accounting and reporting requirements for Federal agencies. Included are accounting standards which apply to property, plant and equipment. Specific changes included in the interim rule were: Additional instructions on how to adjust previously reported values; a new definition of Agency Peculiar Property to exclude completed end items destined for permanent operation in space; and a new definition of Work in Process to include completed end items destined for permanent operation in space which otherwise meet the definition of Agency Peculiar Property. Comments were received from four groups. All comments received were considered. Changes made in this final rule are for consistency in application and are considered editorial in nature.

NASA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) because less than three per cent of NASA contracts with small businesses have property reporting requirements.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , applies to this final rule because it contains information collection requirements. Approval for the additional requirements has been obtained under OMB Control No. 2700-0017, approving an increase in burden hours from 5,700 to 8144.

A final rule was published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 63654 (December 12, 1995) that apportioned pollock nonspecific reserve between inshore and offshore components of the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands applicable through December 31, 1998. The applicable period for that allocation having expired, the paragraph referring to that allocation of pollock nonspecific reserve is no longer applicable and must be removed.

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.