A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to PWC PT6A-25C and -114A turboprop engines, was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2000 (65 FR 56819). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections, and eventual replacement of the compressor bleed valve assembly, with a redesigned valve assembly for -114A engines, and -25C engines.

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

Three commenters request that the FAA add PWC Service Bulletin (SB) PT6A-72-1581, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2000, as terminating action for the AD. The FAA agrees. The service bulletin referenced in the proposal, PWC SB PT6A-72-1588, and PWC SB PT6A-72-1581, Revision 1, introduce the same part, a new design of compressor bleed valve assembly that eliminates the unsafe condition. Therefore, either PWC SB PT6A-72-1581 or PWC SB PT6A-72-1588, dated February 18, 2000, will serve as terminating action for PT6A-114A to the inspection requirements of this AD.

One comment notes that all of the referenced service bulletins apply to the PT6A-25C and PT6A-114A engines only if those engines have incorporated SB PT6A-72-1510. The comment, therefore, asks that the FAA limit the applicability of this AD to just those engines that have incorporated SB PT6A-72-1510.

The FAA agrees. Only those engines that were modified per SB PT6A-72-1510 should be affected by this AD, which has been changed accordingly.

Since the publication of the NPRM, Pratt and Whitey has published PWC SB PT6A-72-1589, dated November 1, 2000. This SB provides for inspection and replacement of compressor bleed valve assemblies installed on PT6A-25C series turboprop engines at the next shop visit, but no later than five years from the effective date of this AD. Replacement of the compressor bleed valve assembly is considered terminating action for the inspection requirements of this AD.

There are about 504 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 353 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take about two work hours per engine to accomplish the initial inspections, and one hour to accomplish the replacement of the valve, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $7,458.00 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,696,214.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to PW PW4000 series turbofan engines with 2nd stage HPT air seal assembly P/N 50L976 or P/N 50L960 installed was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81780). That action proposed to require operators to recalculate 2nd stage HPT air seal assembly cycles-in-service, based on flight hour-to-cycle ratio usage. That action also proposed to require upon recalculation, initial and repetitive on-wing borescope inspections of 2nd stage HPT air seal assemblies for cracks based on the newly calculated service life, in accordance with PW ASB No. PW4G-112-A72-233, dated August 25, 2000. Finally, that action proposed to require removal from service of any cracked seal assemblies, and the removal of seal assemblies at or before newly calculated service life limits.

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

One commenter requests that the AD reference Revision 1 of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-233, dated January 18, 2001. That revision clarifies the procedures for mixed operation of “long mission” and “short mission” operation, and does not change the inspection requirements. The FAA agrees that Revision 1 of the ASB provides necessary clarification. However, since the publication of the NPRM, the manufacturer published several revisions to ASB PW4G-112-A72-233. The original issue of the ASB required a one-time borescope inspection for engines converted by SB PW4G-112-75-30 at the time of conversion. Revision 1, dated January 16, 2001, clarified mixed mission instructions and in-shop inspections. Revision 2, dated March 27, 2001, added a statement that if the conversion occurred before the requirement for the one-time inspection, the one-time inspection is performed within 250 cycles of the issue date of Revision 2. Revision 3, dated August 3, 2001, removes all reference to a one-time inspection. These revisions do not change the inspection requirements referenced by the AD. Therefore, the SB reference has been changed in the AD to PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-233, Revision 3. However, inspections done in accordance with the original SB or any of the revisions are considered to be in compliance with the AD.

Two commenters request confirmation that for the Mixed-Cycle Operator's Instructions of the SB referenced by the NPRM, the hour-to-cycle ratio does not need to be calculated prior to August 25, 2000, the original publication date of the ASB. The commenters request confirmation that the monthly hour-to-cycle ratio monitoring is required only after the initial hour-to-cycle ratio is calculated.

The FAA agrees that there appears to be some ambiguity regarding when calculations for hour-to-cycle ratio must be performed in order to determine the initial inspection threshold. The ASB states that the determination of the total number of hours and cycles a 2nd stage air seal has accumulated is done “up to this point.” This means the calculation of the total number of cycles on the seals must be done in accordance with the SB for every month that the seal has been in service. Because the AD incorporates the instructions of the ASB by reference, the AD requires the calculation of equivalent cycles by the equation in paragraph 1. A. of the Mixed Cycle Operator's Instructions of the ASB on all the cycles that the seal has accumulated in service on the date that the calculation is performed. Paragraph (a) of the AD specifies that the initial inspection threshold must be determined within 30 days of the effective date of the AD. The wording of the AD does not need to be changed because the compliance is “required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.” If an operator made the determination of the initial inspection threshold utilizing the August 25, 2000 date, prior to the publication of this AD, this would be in compliance with the AD. The FAA agrees that the monthly hour-to-cycle ratio monitoring is required only after the initial hour-to-cycle ratio is calculated.

One commenter requests clarification as to whether the ASB requirement for air seal inspection in the shop is included in the AD. The in-shop inspection requirements are not included in the AD. The NPRM references the “On-Wing” inspection procedures of the ASB because the FAA determined by evaluation of risk assessment data that, at a minimum, the on-wing inspections are required to address the unsafe condition.

One commenter notes that Pratt & Whitney SB PW4G-112-A72-233, referenced in the NPRM, does not list PW4074D, and PW4090-3 as applicable engine models. However, the Boeing master change for B777 allows installation of these engine models. The commenter believes this AD and the SB should reflect the PW4074D and the PW4090-3 as applicable engine models. The FAA agrees. The Appliciability now reflects the PW4000 112 inch diameter series engine models: PW4074, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, PW4074D, PW4090D, PW4098.

One commenter requests clarification of the AD requirements for engines that have been converted from Population 3 to Population 4 or from 90K-A to 90K-B prior to the initial inspection threshold. The AD does not require the one-time post-conversion inspection for engines that were converted per SB PW4G-112-75-30 or Special Instruction 134F-98 to population 4 or population 90K-B prior to the installed air seal accruing 1,500 cycles for “long mission” operators or 3,300 cycles for “short mission” operators.

One commenter notes that the On-Wing inspection procedure described in the Accomplishment Instructions of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-233 allows operators to follow Boeing AMM Chapter/Section 72-52-00 as an alternative. The commenter believes the AD should also allow operators to use the procedure in the Boeing AMM Chapter/Section 72-52-00. The FAA does not agree. The FAA has not reviewed and approved the Boeing AMM Chapter/Section 72-52-00 that is cross-referenced in the ASB. Therefore, the Boeing AMM is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

One commenter requests that the exception provided by PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-233 that allows operators to inspect every 250 cycles rather than track hour-to-cycle ratio be permitted in the AD. The commenter asks if the monthly hour-to-cycle ratio should be calculated from the first day to the last day of each month, or twelve nearly equally spaced increments in a given year. The FAA agrees. The 250 flight cycle inspection frequency, and a cycle limit of 8,000 cycles is a more conservative approach. The FAA agrees that this option should be allowed in the AD. In addition, the FAA agrees that twelve nearly equally spaced increments in a given year satisfies the intent of the term “monthly.”

One commenter expresses concern that the control mechanism established in the ASB and AD is too complicated for an operator to manage. The commenter believes that this kind of complication can cause human error, which can result in non-compliance to the ASB. The FAA disagrees that this AD establishes a control mechanism that is too complicated for an operator to manage and is prone to human error. While human error can be introduced into any process, this is unlikely to occur when diligence in process management is afforded to issues that are subject to regulatory action.

One commenter requests a clarification of statements made in the Discussion section of the NPRM. The first sentence in the Discussion states, “This proposal is prompted by reports that thirteen 2nd stage HPT air seal assemblies have been cracked in the rim area.” The commenter requests that for clarification the following be added: “These thirteen air seals were operating in the hottest configuration design, which is no longer in service.” The subsequent sentence would then say: “However, the current design 2nd stage HPT air seal assemblies are still operating in a temperature environment that is hotter than the manufacturer anticipated.” The FAA agrees and this clarification has been added to the summary section of this amendment.

One commenter notes an inaccuracy in the replacement cost used in the Economic Analysis. The cost of a new 2nd stage HPT air seal noted in the ASB is $213,990, whereas the cost stated in the NPRM is $235,950. The FAA agrees. Utilizing the $213,990 figure would decrease the overall estimated cost impact from $10,659,312 to $8,551,152, a reduction of $2,108,160.

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

There are approximately 233 Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4000 series turbofan engines with 2nd stage high pressure turbine (HPT) air seal assembly part number (P/N) 50L976 or P/N 50L960 installed in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 96 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 2.3 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed on-wing borescope inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The FAA estimates that approximately 47% of the certified life of the affected parts will be lost. Required parts would cost $213,990 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,551,152.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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

On September 4, 1998, DoC published an interim final rule (63 FR 47155) adopting the provisions of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” Changes made by the interim final rule were not intended to deviate from the substance of Circular A-110. However, the interim final rule made minor changes to update the procedures, clarify the language, and make the language apply specifically to DoC and its operating units. The interim final rule is codified at 15 CFR part 14.

This rule amends the interim final rule to incorporate a change requested through public notice and comment. This final rule is not subject to the rulemaking requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 because it relates to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts, 5 U.S.C. 553(c)(2), including the provision of prior notice and an opportunity for public comment and delayed effective date. No other law requires that notice and opportunity for comment be given for this rule. However, given the nature of OMB Circular A-110 as a common rule, the DoC accepted comments from interested parties in an effort to ensure consistency.

DoC received comments from five colleges and universities concerning the DoC requirement for prior approval on any rebudgeting request that exceeds 10 percent of program costs for all awards, including those awards of $100,000 or less. Each of the institutions objected to the provision that recipients may not transfer funds among direct cost categories or programs, functions and activities for awards in which the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed 10 percent of the total budget as last approved. All comments received were considered in developing these final amendments.

As stipulated at 15 CFR 14.25(f), the DoC interim final rule requires prior approval on budget revisions exceeding 10 percent for all awards regardless of the amount of Federal funding. DoC continues to take steps toward improving its program delivery, policies and procedures, and to be more responsive to those whom it serves. This final rule revises 15 CFR 14.25(f) to require prior approval for awards in which the Federal share of the project exceeds $100,000. In addition, the final rule makes clear that the 10 percent threshold applies to the total Federal and non-Federal funds authorized by the Grants Officer at the time of the transfer request. This is the accumulated amount of Federal funding obligated by the Grants Officer along with any approved non-Federal share.

In addition to making changes requested by the public, this final rule updates language and provisions. The phrase “small purchase threshold” is changed to “simplified acquisition threshold” throughout the document in order to be consistent with section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 403(11), as amended by section 4001 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-355. In addition, Appendix A is updated in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-355, which raised the threshold to $100,000 for the requirement to include the provision for compliance with sections 102 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333). Finally, Appendix A is corrected to reflect that the disclosure requirements under the Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment, 31 U.S.C. 1352, apply to organizations that apply or bid for an award exceeding $100,000 (not $100,000 or more).

This notice has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law for this rule relating to public property, loans, grants benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 15 CFR Part 14 are those required by OMB Circular A-110 and have already been cleared by OMB.

Today we are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual (Filer Manual). The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system.1 It also describes the requirements for filing using modernized EDGARLink.2

The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the new modernized EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.3 Filers should consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission.4

EDGAR Release 8.0, the most recent step in the Commission's modernization project, will be implemented on September 24, 2001. This release includes a new version of EDGARLink (Release 8.0), which makes certain enhancements to the templates and software. Filers must download and use the updated EDGARLink 8.0 software and templates to ensure their filings will be processed successfully. EDGAR will no longer support earlier versions of EDGARLink. Notice of the update has previously been provided on the EDGAR Filing Web Site, through return notices to filers, and on the Commission's public web site. The discrete updates are reflected on the filing web site, and in the updated Filer Manual.

One benefit of the new release is its update to the Internet Forms Viewer and the Java Runtime Environment software packages, which are incorporated into EDGARLink. This upgrade will make EDGARLink more compatible with newer versions of commercial and custom software already deployed and used by our customers.

Other enhancements facilitate the entry of data for fee-based filings. EDGARLink Release 8.0 contains two new fee pages within Templates 1 and 2: the Fee and Offering Information page and Fee Offset Information page. The Fee and Offering Information page contains fee-related fields: Payor CIK and Payor CCC, Method of Payment and the Fee Paid (if applicable). Also displayed is an Offering Table that replaces the Equity, Debt, Convertible and Other fields. Fee Paid is now required, if applicable to the particular form type, and a suspense error “incorrect fee amount” will be displayed if the amount in the Fee Paid field is less then the calculated fee amount.

The Fee Offset Information page allows the entry of multiple offsets for a single submission. Each offset information row contains the CIK, Form Type, File Number, Offset Filing Date and the Amount. There is also a new automatic fee estimating function within EDGARLink that calculates the fee, based upon data entered by the filer. This function will be kept current through the use of the Fee Rate Table file; this file will be updated by the Commission and will be available for download by the filers through the EDGAR Filing Web site.

There also have been other enhancements to the EDGARLink Templates 1, 2 and 3. We have updated various fields on the template screens, such as a save icon, to make them clearer and easier to use. Several fields have been relocated to improve the fit of the templates on the filer's monitor. EDGAR now will automatically assign file numbers to new registrants on amendments, when “new” is typed in the File Number field of the new co-registrant. We have also removed fields that were incorrectly displaying for certain form types. Fields now required for particular form types, such as the new fee fields for fee bearing filings and the File Number field for the U-3A-2/A form, will be displayed. A number of form types will now only allow single registrants: 24F-2NT, all OPUR form types, N-6F, N-6F/A, N-54A, N-54A/A, N-54C and N-54C/A. Co-registrant fields for these form types will not be displayed. The form types N-6C9 and N-6C9/A have been removed from EDGAR.

Along with adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington DC 20549-0102. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual is <http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/filermanual.htm>. You may also obtain copies from Thomson Financial Corp, the paper and microfiche contractor for the Commission, at (800) 638-8241.

Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).5 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 6 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is October 1, 2001. In accordance with the APA,7 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 8.0 is scheduled to occur on September 24, 2001. The Commission believes that it is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the scheduled system upgrade.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act,8 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,9 Section 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935,10 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,11 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.12

In title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 299, revised as of April 1, 2001, part 41 is amended on page 195 by removing the second § 41.57.

Comments. We are publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal in the event that adverse comments are filed.

If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of information compiled by EPA in developing this direct final rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the docket contains the record in the case of judicial review. The docket number for this rulemaking is A-2001-18.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, electronic copies of this action will be posted on the Technology Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance information page http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities that potentially will be affected by this amendment include the following:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 60.41b of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the action taken by this direct final rule is available only on the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 30, 2001. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject to today's action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Under section 307(d)(7) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment or public hearing may be raised during judicial review.

On November 25, 1986 (51 FR 42768), we promulgated standards of performance to limit NOX emissions from new industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units. Within the chemical manufacturing industry and the petroleum refining industry, byproduct/waste gases or liquids are often co-fired with natural gas or oil in steam generating units. Although new steam generating units co-firing byproduct/wastes with natural gas or oil must comply with the same NOX emission limits as units firing only natural gas or oil, in most cases, that presents no problems.

Nitrogen oxides emissions, however, are influenced by the presence of nitrogen in the materials burned, and as we discussed in the Federal Register notices proposing and promulgating the standards, co-firing high-nitrogen byproduct/wastes can lead to a significant increase in NOX emission levels. As a result, to ensure that the NOX emission limits were not unreasonable, we included provisions in the standards for petitioning the Administrator for a site specific NOX emission limit for a new steam generating unit located at a chemical plant or petroleum refinery where it could be shown that co-firing specific byproduct/wastes containing nitrogen prevents compliance with the NOX emission limits.

The provisions require that an owner or operator petitioning the Administrator present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the unit is able to comply with the NOX emission limits when firing natural gas or oil, but unable to comply when co-firing byproduct/waste under the same conditions. Thus, the owner or operator must first measure NOX emissions when firing only natural gas or oil and demonstrate compliance with the NOX emission limits. Excess air levels and other operating conditions must be recorded, and the owner or operator must then measure NOX emissions while co-firing the byproduct/waste with natural gas or oil under these same conditions.

Emissions measured when co-firing the byproduct/waste serve as the basis for establishing a site specific NOX emission limit applicable only during those periods when byproduct/waste is co-fired in the steam generating unit. During periods when byproduct/waste is not co-fired, the unit must comply with the NOX emission limits in the standards.

As mentioned, co-firing most byproduct/wastes does not present a problem with respect to compliance with the NOX emission limits. As a result, in the 15 years since adoption of the standards, only three site specific NOX emission limits have been proposed and promulgated for new steam generating units located at chemical plants or petroleum refineries.

On April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504), we promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from pulp and paper mills. The standards require control of HAP waste gases from certain pulp vents. One alternative to control the HAP waste gases is to co-fire them in a steam generating unit.

Recently, it has come to our attention that the most reasonable alternative at one pulp and paper mill subject to the NESHAP is to co-fire the HAP waste gases in a steam generating unit subject to the standards of performance for industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units. The HAP waste gases, however, contain nitrogen compounds and, as a result, the steam generating unit may not comply with the emission limit for NOX emissions.

Other alternatives, such as installing a dedicated incinerator to burn the HAP waste gases, are substantially more costly and, in addition, could result in greater NOX emissions. If the steam generating unit were located at a chemical plant or a petroleum refinery, the owners and operators could petition the Administrator for a site specific NOX emission limit. Because the steam generating unit is located at a pulp and paper mill, however, as the standards now exist, that is not possible.

In retrospect, the provisions to petition the Administrator for a site specific NOX emission limit were included in the standards for steam generating units located at chemical plants or petroleum refineries only because those were the only two industries which demonstrated a need for that type of flexibility in the standards at the time they were developed. With development of the NESHAP for pulp and paper mills, as illustrated by the example outlined above, it is clear that the pulp and paper industry also needs that flexibility. Consequently, we are amending the standards of performance for industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units to extend the provisions to petition the Administrator for a site specific NOX emission limit to owners and operators of new steam generating units located at pulp and paper mills which co-fire byproduct/wastes.

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

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

(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 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 the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this direct final rule does not qualify as a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review by OMB.

This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Also, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this direct final rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this direct final rule.

Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we 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 we considered.

We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. Also, this direct final rule is not “economically significant.”

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this direct final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

We have also determined that this direct final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

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

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this direct final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as (1) A small business in the regulated industry which has less than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this direct final rule on small entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget approved the information collection requirements contained in the standards under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at the time the rules were promulgated on November 25, 1986.

The amendment contained in this direct final rule results in no changes to the information collection requirements of the standards or guidelines and will have no impact on the information collection estimate of project cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB during the development of the standards and guidelines. Therefore, the information collection requests have not been revised.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This direct final rule amendment does not involve technical standards. Therefore, it is not subject to NTTAA.

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. We will submit a report containing this direct final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this direct final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The EPA is approving the Texas State Plan, as submitted on June 2, 2000, for the control of air emissions from HMIWIs. When we developed our New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for HMIWIs, we also developed EG to control air emissions from older HMIWIs. See 62 FR 48348-48391, September 15, 1997. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) developed a State Plan, as required by section 111(d) of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act), to incorporate the EG requirements into its body of regulations, and we are acting today to approve the State's Plan.

When burned, hospital waste and medical/infectious waste emit various air pollutants, including hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan, and toxic metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury). Mercury is highly hazardous and is of particular concern because it persists in the environment and bioaccumulates through the food web. Serious developmental and adult effects in humans, primarily damage to the nervous system, have been associated with exposures to mercury. Harmful effects in wildlife have also been reported; these include nervous system damage and behavioral and reproductive deficits. Human and wildlife exposure to mercury occurs mainly through the ingestion of fish. When inhaled, mercury vapor attacks the lung tissue and is a cumulative poison. Short-term exposure to mercury in certain forms can cause hallucinations and impair consciousness. Long-term exposure to mercury in certain forms can affect the central nervous system and cause kidney damage.

Exposure to particulate matter has been linked with adverse health effects, including aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death.

Hydrochloric acid is a clear colorless gas. Chronic exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and photosensitization. Acute exposure to high levels of chlorine in humans may result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and death. At lower levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and lungs.

Exposure to dioxin and furan can cause skin disorders, cancer, and reproductive effects such as endometriosis. These pollutants can also affect the immune system.

Section 111(d) of the Act requires that pollutants controlled under NSPS must also be controlled at older sources in the same source category. Once an NSPS is promulgated, we then publish an EG applicable to the control of the same pollutant from existing designated facilities. States with designated facilities must then develop a State Plan to adopt the EG into their body of regulations. States must also include in this State Plan other elements, such as inventories, legal authority, and public participation documentation, to demonstrate the ability to enforce it.

The State added a control strategy entitled “Plan for Control of Hospital and Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators” to its “The Texas State Plan for the Control of Designated Facilities and Pollutants” in order to implement the 1997 EG for HMIWI under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. For the regulatory element of the plan, the TNRCC adopted, on May 17, 2000, revisions to Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 113 (30 TAC 113) (Regulation III), Control of Air Pollution From Toxic Materials. These revisions amended Section 113.1, Definitions, and added to Subchapter D, Designated Facilities and Pollutants, a new Division 2, Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, Sections 113.2070 to 113.2072 and 113.2074 to 113.2079. The State effective date of these rules was June 11, 2000. The Governor submitted the Plan to EPA on June 2, 2000.

The Texas State Plan contains:

1. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to implement the section 111(d) State Plan;

2. State Regulations 30 TAC 113.1; 30 TAC 113.2070 to 113.2072; and 30 TAC 113.2074 to 113.2079 as the enforceable mechanism;

3. An inventory of approximately 101 operating designated facilities subject to the Chapter 113 emission standards, 24 units exempt from control requirements but subject to reporting, and 43 affected facilities which have elected to shut down. An updated inventory of facilities and emissions inventory along with estimates of their toxic air emissions are being collected and will be included in the AIRS database in the future by the State.

4. Emission limits that are as protective as the EG;

5. A compliance date no later than one year after we approve the Plan. See Section 113.2079 and 40 CFR 60.39e, as listed at 62 FR 48381, September 15, 1997.

6. Testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the designated facilities;

7. Records from the public hearing; and,

8. Provisions for progress reports to EPA.

The Texas State Plan was reviewed for approval against the following criteria: 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities; and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce, Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators. A detailed discussion of our evaluation of the Texas State Plan is included in our technical support document located in the official file for this action.

The EG for existing HMIWIs affect any HMIWI built on or before June 20, 1996. If your facility meets this criterion, you are subject to these regulations.

You must meet the requirements in 30 TAC 113 as set out above and summarized as follows:

1. Determine the size of your incinerator by establishing its maximum design capacity.

2. Each size category of HMIWI has certain emission limits established which your incinerator must meet. See Table 2 in Section 113.2072 to determine the specific emission limits which apply to you. The emission limits apply at all times, except during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions, provided that no waste has been charged during these events. See Section 113.2072.

3. There are provisions to address small-remote incinerators (Sections 113.2070(15)(G), 113.2072, 113.2074, 113.2075, 113.2076(b)).

4. You must meet a five percent opacity limit on your discharge, averaged over a six-minute period (Section 113.2072(b)(2)).

5. You must have a qualified HMIWI operator available to supervise the operation of your incinerator. This operator training and qualification requirements are given in Section 113.2078.

6. Your operator must be certified, as discussed in 5 above, no later than one year after we approve the Plan. See Section 113.2079 and 40 CFR 60.39e(e), as listed at 62 FR 48382, September 15, 1997.

7. You must develop and submit to TNRCC a waste management plan. This plan must be developed under guidance provided by the American Hospital Association publication, “An Ounce of Prevention: Waste Reduction Strategies for Health Care Facilities, 1993,” and must be submitted to TNRCC within 60 days after initial performance test. See Section 113.2077.

8. You must conduct an initial performance test to determine your incinerator's compliance with these emission limits (Section 113.2075).

9. You must install and maintain devices to monitor the parameters listed under Table 6 in Section 113.2075.

10. You must document and maintain information concerning pollutant concentrations, opacity measurements, charge rates, and other operational data. This information must be maintained for a period of five years. See Section 113.2076.

11. You must report to TNRCC the results of your initial performance test, the values for your site-specific operating parameters, and your waste management plan. This information must be reported within 60 days following your initial performance test, and must be signed by the facilities manager (Section 113.2076).

12. In general, you must comply with all the requirements of this State Plan within one year after we approve it. See Section 113.2079.

On June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32427) we approved the Texas 111(d) plan for municipal solid waste landfills. We inadvertently failed to add municipal solid waste landfills to the list of Texas designated facilities listed in 40 CFR 62.10850(c). This action corrects this error by adding “Municipal solid waste landfills” to the list of designated facilities in 40 CFR 62.10850(c).

The EPA is approving the Texas 111(d) plan for the control of air emissions from existing HMIWIs submitted by the Governor on June 2, 2000. This action also corrects an error in 40 CFR 62.10850(c) by adding “Municipal solid waste landfills” to the list of Texas designated facilities.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the Texas 111(d) Plan if adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on November 30, 2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by October 31, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 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 tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state plan submission, to use VCS in place of a state plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met certain federal criteria. In implementing the title V operating permit programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under the title V program include: “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain operating permits. Examples of major sources include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), or particulate matter (PM10); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as “serious,” major sources include those with the potential of emitting 50 tons per year or more of VOCs or NOX.

Where a title V operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval contingent on the state revising its program to correct the deficiencies. Because Florida's program substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to the program in a rulemaking published on September 25, 1995 (60 FR 49343). The interim approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order for the State's program to receive full approval. Interim approval of Florida's program expires on December 1, 2001.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has fulfilled the conditions of the interim approval granted on September 25, 1995. On July 2, 2001, EPA published a document in the Federal Register (see 66 FR 34901) proposing full approval of Florida's title V operating permit program, and proposing approval of other program revisions. Since EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal, this action promulgates final full approval of the State of Florida program and final approval of the other program changes described in the proposal.

Copies of the Florida's submittals and other supporting documentation used in developing the final full approval are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 4 office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this action. The primary purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket files are available for public inspection at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

This action does not have Federalism implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves existing requirements under state law, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the state and the federal government established in the CAA.

This action does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significantly regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because operating permit program approvals under section 502 of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

In reviewing operating permit programs, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA and EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use VCS, EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to use VCS in place of an operating permit program that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

This action will not impose any collection of information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than those previously approved and assigned Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 2060-0243. For additional information concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) of 1990 required all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that meet certain Federal criteria. 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661e. In implementing the operating permit programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve compliance and enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how to determine compliance with those requirements.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. See 40 CFR 70.3. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain operating permits. Examples of major sources include: those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter (PM 10); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant specifically listed under the CAA (HAP); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. In areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as “serious,” such as Rhode Island, major sources include those with the potential of emitting 50 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.

Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, meets the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, and where a State requests source category-limited interim approval, EPA may grant the program interim approval. Because Rhode Island's operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to the program in a rulemaking published on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20150). Normally, with interim approval, a state must submit a corrective program to receive full approval. But Rhode Island's program was fully approvable, with the exception that the State planned to issue permits within a five-year schedule, rather than the three year schedule provided for in section 503(c) of the Act. In its interim approval notice, EPA discussed the possibility that Rhode Island's program might automatically convert to a full approval. But EPA made that conversion contingent upon Rhode Island issuing permits in a timely fashion consistent with its five year transition plan. Since Rhode Island did not meet the five year schedule, we could not automatically convert their program to full approval.

We are granting full approval under our current Part 70 rules because the only issue that limited our 1996 approval of Rhode Island's program was the State's schedule for permit issuance. To date Rhode Island has made reasonable progress in issuing Title V permits to its sources. Although Rhode Island has only issued 28% of their permits, they have issued 80% of those in the last year. EPA believes that disapproving Rhode Island's program at this point would not result in permits being issued any more quickly. The State now has the organization in place to support its program, and having EPA take over permit issuance now would only disrupt a program that has gotten beyond the inertia of startup. It would be counterproductive to disapprove a program that fully meets the requirements of part 70 only to force EPA to absorb the responsibility that Rhode Island is finally prepared to handle. However, failure to issue permits according to statutory and regulatory requirements is a deficiency in program implementation nationally. The Agency will be addressing this national permit issuance deficiency later this year.

Rhode Island made additional changes after the source category limited-interim approval was submitted to EPA on June 2, 1995. On October 1, 1996, Rhode Island submitted revisions to APC Regulation No. 29, Operating Permits, and APC Regulation No. 28, Operating Permit Fees that amended the definition of “volatile organic compound” (VOC). Acetone, paracholorobenzotrifluoride, and volatile methyl siloxanes are now included on the list of compounds that are exempted from the definition of VOC because of their negligible photochemical reactivity. Rhode Island's revisions to its VOC definition are consistent with revisions EPA has made to its definition of VOC.

On October 1, 1996 and October 26, 2000, Rhode Island submitted changes to APC Regulation No. 28, Operating Permit Fees, amending the due date for fees and the inventory year used in calculating the fees. This allows Rhode Island sufficient time to determine the prior year's carryover amounts to be included when billing a source for the upcoming year. The revisions also added an application fee for facilities receiving a general emissions cap designed to keep them out of Title V.

On January 1, 1999, Rhode Island submitted a revision that incorporated by reference the revised provisions of the Acid Rain Program in 40 CFR part 72. This allows the state to utilize the provisions of the revised federal regulation when drafting a facility's operating permit.

On October 26, 2000, the State submitted a revision to its list of insignificant activities that must be included in the operating permit application but are exempted from having to be fully described because of size, emission levels, or production rate. The application must contain enough information to show that the activity qualifies for the exemption. This change is consistent with the applicability thresholds in APC Regulation No. 9 for preconstruction permits, and includes changes with such minor emissions impacts that they are exempted even from Rhode Island's minor new source review program, for example a natural gas-burning device with a heat input capacity of less than ten million Btu per hour.

All these changes are consistent with EPA's operating permit program regulations.

Following EPA's interim approval of Rhode Island's operating permit program, the State adopted the Rhode Island Environmental Compliance Incentive Act (ECIA), which provides certain incentives for facilities that conduct environmental compliance audits, voluntarily disclose violations found in an audit, and promptly bring themselves into compliance. R.I.G.L. section 42-17.8. The ECIA is not an interim approval issue, because it did not exist at the time EPA acted on Rhode Island's original program. But the Agency asked the State to clarify the operation of the statute to avoid any question whether Rhode Island retains adequate enforcement authority to support continued implementation of federal environmental programs. On July 25, 2001, the Rhode Island Attorney General provided EPA with a legal opinion concerning the State's criminal enforcement authority under the ECIA. EPA has determined that Rhode Island retains sufficient criminal enforcement authority under the ECIA to support implementation of federal environmental programs, including the Clean Air Act operating permit program.

EPA is taking final action to fully approve the State's operating permit program.1 EPA is also taking action to approve program changes Rhode Island made on October 1, 1996, January 1, 1999 and October 26, 2000, since EPA granted the source category limited-interim approval. EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to grant full approval should we receive relevant adverse comments. This action will be effective November 30, 2001 unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by October 31, 2001.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be effective on November 30, 2001.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) because it proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duties beyond that required by state law. This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The rule merely proposes to approve existing requirements under state law, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the State and the Federal government established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection of information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than those previously approved and assigned OMB control number 2060-0243. For additional information concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State programs provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. 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 State operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to use VCS in place of a State program 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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 30, 2001. Interested parties should comment in response to the rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the rule. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

We conclude that Missouri's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Missouri final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Missouri has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Missouri, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Missouri subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Missouri has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports.

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Missouri is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.

EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes.

If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

On November 20, 1985, EPA published a Federal Register notice announcing its decision to grant final authorization for the RCRA base program to the State of Missouri which became effective December 12, 1985 (50 FR 47740). Missouri received authorization for revisions to its program as follows: February 27, 1989, effective April 28, 1989 (54 FR 8190); January 11, 1993, effective March 12, 1993 (58 FR 3497); and on May 30, 1997, effective July 29, 1997 (62 FR 29301). On January 7, 1998, (63 FR 683) a correction was made to the May 30, 1997, (62 FR 29301) notice to correct the effective date of the rule to be consistent with sections 801 and 808 of the Congressional Review Act, enacted as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Additionally, the State adopted and applied for interim authorization for the corrective action portion of the HSWA Codification Rule (July 15, 1985, 50 FR 28702). For a full discussion of the HSWA of the HSWA Codification Rule, the reader is referred to the Federal Register cited above. The State was granted interim authorization for the corrective action portion of the HSWA Codification Rule on February 23, 1994, effective April 25, 1994 (50 FR 8544). Final authorization for corrective action was granted on May 4, 1999, effective July 5, 1999 (64 FR 23740). Missouri received authorization for further revisions to its program on February 28, 2000, effective April 28, 2000 (65 FR 10405).

On March 22, 2001, Missouri submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of its changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Missouri's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Missouri final authorization for the following program changes:

In this authorization of the State of Missouri's program revisions for Federal Revision Checklist 121, there are no provisions that are more stringent or broader in scope. Broader in scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them.

Missouri will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Missouri is not yet authorized.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart AA for this authorization of Missouri's program changes until a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes preexisting 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). For the same reason, this action does not have Tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The regulations of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States are being revised and republished in order to improve their readability, update some of the information in them, and remove portions that are redundant or outdated.

This rule relates to matters of agency management and personnel and, therefore, is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

The Chairman of the Commission, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Commission. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required to be prepared for this final rule because the Commission was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management and personnel as described by Executive Order 12866 section (3)(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Commission has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a “rule” for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.

We try to write clearly. If you can suggest how to improve the clarity of these regulations, call or write Commission Chief Counsel David E. Bradley at the address and telephone number listed above.

DoD published an interim rule at 65 FR 77827 on December 13, 2000. The rule amended the DFARS to implement Section 8064 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-259) and Section 805 of the DoD Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). Section 8064 of Public Law 106-259 restricts the acquisition of ball and roller bearings and vessel propellers to those produced by a domestic source and of domestic origin. The restriction does not apply to the purchase of commercial items, except ball or roller bearings purchased as end items. Section 805 of Public Law 106-398 extends the restriction on acquisition of ball and roller bearings at 10 U.S.C. 2534 through fiscal year 2005.

Three sources submitted comments on the interim rule. DoD considered all comments in the decision to convert the interim rule to a final rule without change.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the analysis from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows: The objective of the rule is to protect the domestic industrial base for ball and roller bearings and vessel propellers as required by statute. By restricting foreign competition, the rule will benefit domestic small business concerns that manufacture ball or roller bearings, bearing components, vessel propellers, or vessel propeller casings. DoD received no public comments that addressed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252, which was published at 65 FR 77827 on December 13, 2000, is adopted as a final rule without change.

FAR 15.403-4 specifies the dollar threshold at which contracting officers obtain cost or pricing data in negotiated acquisitions. On October 11, 2000 (65 FR 60553), this threshold was increased from $500,000 to $550,000.

This final rule amends DFARS 215.404 and 253.215-70 to remove references to the $500,000 threshold. Since 10 U.S.C. 2306a(a)(7) and 41 U.S.C. 254b(a)(7) require review of the cost or pricing data threshold every 5 years, this rule replaces the figure “$500,000” with the phrase “cost or pricing data threshold” to minimize the need for future DFARS changes.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2000-D026.

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

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 215 and 253 are amended as follows:

A memorandum of understanding dated May 6, 1998, between DoD and SBA permits DoD to award contracts directly to eligible 8(a) Program participants, instead of awarding the contracts through the SBA as provided for in Subpart 19.8 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The expiration date of the memorandum of understanding has been extended to December 31, 2001. This final rule amends DFARS 219.800 to reflect the extension.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2001-D009.

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

This final rule—

• Removes DFARS 223.404(b)(3). FAR 223.404(b)(3) had required a written determination approved by an official designated by the agency head if the agency was acquiring EPA designated items that did not meet the EPA minimum recovered material standards. DFARS 223.404(b)(3) designated the approval officials for DoD. Since Item III of FAC 97-18 (65 FR 36016, June 6, 2000) removed the written determination requirement from the FAR, the corresponding levels of approval are removed from the DFARS; and

• Moves the text at DFARS 223.404(b)(4) to DFARS 223.405(d), since Item III of FAC 97-18 moved the corresponding text from FAR 223.404(b)(4) to FAR 223.405(d).

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2001-D005.

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

This final DFARS rule conforms the DoD customary uniform progress payment rate for large business concerns with the progress payment rate for large business concerns currently being used by other Executive agencies under Federal Acquisition Regulation 32.501-1(a).

This final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule that was published at 66 FR 44589 on August 24, 2001. DoD received two comments in response to the proposed rule. Both comments were in favor of the rule.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD 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 the rule makes no change to the progress payment rates for small business and small disadvantaged business concerns.

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

This final rule removes the clauses at DFARS 252.243-7000, Engineering Change Proposals, and 252.248-7000, Preparation of Value Engineering Change Proposals, and the corresponding clause prescriptions at DFARS 243.205-70 and 248.270. DoD used these clauses to require submission of engineering change proposals in the format prescribed by MIL-STD-973, Configuration Management. MIS-STD-973 was cancelled without replacement on September 20, 2000. Therefore, this final rule removes the clauses that were based on the requirements of MIL-STD-973. General policy regarding engineering change proposals is removed from DFARS 243.205-70 to a more appropriate location at 243.204-71.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2001-D001.

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

The AGAR implements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR chapter 1) where further implementation is needed, and supplements the FAR where coverage is needed for subject matter not covered by the FAR. AGAR section 442.1502 currently provides that the heads of the contracting activities are responsible for establishing past performance evaluation procedures and systems as required by FAR sections 42.1502 and 42.1503. USDA has identified a single automated performance evaluation system (the National Institutes of Health Contractor Performance System (hereinafter “NIH CPS”)) to be used USDA-wide and this rule modifies AGAR section 442.1502 to identify that system and specify its mandatory use by all USDA contracting activities.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 54986, September 12, 2000), USDA announced that this proposed amendment to the AGAR was available for public review and comment during a 60 day comment period. One commenter, an employee of Department of Agriculture, submitted comments to USDA on the proposed rule. The commenter objected to USDA making the NIH CPS system mandatory. The commenter objected that the system was lengthy, complicated, cumbersome, costly, not user-friendly, and that local training was not provided. The commenter suggested that USDA develop its own system. While the employee's agency declined to support the position of the commenter, we have considered the comment as from an individual. After careful consideration, USDA has determined not to change the proposed rule. The NIH CPS provides a single uniform system for evaluating contractor performance, and because of the number of Federal agencies using the system, it has a very broad database available for such evaluations. Design and development of a USDA system would be costly and would not provide the broad database of information afforded by the NIH. In this rulemaking document, USDA is finalizing the proposed amendment to the AGAR.

USDA prepared a work plan for this regulation and submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Executive Order No. 12866. OMB determined that the rule was not significant for the purposes of Executive Order No. 12866. Therefore, the rule has not been reviewed by OMB. USDA has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order No. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule meets the applicable standards in section 3 of Executive Order No. 12988.

USDA reviewed this rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-611, which requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule which is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. USDA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. USDA solicited comments from small entities concerning parts affected by the rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking publicizing the proposed rule for comment (65 FR 54986, September 12, 2000). No comments from small entities were received.

No information collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on the public by this rule. Accordingly no OMB clearance is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 or OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

A report on this rule has been submitted to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 801-808. This rule is not a major rule for purposes of the Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. USDA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate. USDA has also determined that this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Title II of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), imposes requirements in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

USDA has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose substantial costs on States and localities. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the procedural requirements of Executive Order 13132 for regulatory policies having federalism implications.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), imposes requirements in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. Executive Order 13175 defines “policies that have tribal implications” as those having “substantial direct effects 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.” USDA has determined that this rule does have tribal implications and, therefore, the consultation and coordination requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rule.

Internet users may view and download this document from the U.S. DOT Docket Management System (DMS) website (http://dms.dot.gov). Please follow the instructions online for more information and help. You may also view and download this document from the Federal Register website at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and through the Government Printing Office (GPO) Access service (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara).

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, December 9, 1999) created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the newest agency of the Department of Transportation (DOT), on January 1, 2000. The FMCSA carries out its responsibilities under authority delegated to its Administrator by the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73 (see 65 FR 220, January 4, 2000). Before FMCSA was created by the MCSIA, the Director of a new Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) in the DOT was delegated authority to regulate motor carrier activities under section 338 of the FY 2000 DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-69, October 9, 1999). Previously, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the Office of the Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers (OMC), was the agency responsible for developing and administering the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). (See 64 FR 56270, October 19, 1999; 64 FR 58355 and 64 FR 58356, October 29, 1999).

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter III, Subpart B, contain Federal motor carrier regulations for truck and bus safety. On January 1, 2000, the Secretary revised the heading for chapter III to read “Chapter III—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.” Simultaneously, part 301 of chapter III (which referenced the FHWA organization) was removed and reserved for the FMCSA organizational structure (see 64 FR 72959, December 29, 1999).

This final rule removes obsolete references and updates authority citations because Congress enacted the MCSIA, which created the FMCSA, and resulted in the transfer of all motor carrier functions and operations to the FMCSA. Because these amendments do not impose new requirements, notice and public comment are unnecessary.

The following is a summary of technical amendments made under this final rule. Minor editorial changes, for example, typographical and punctuation errors, and certain other minor adjustments to improve clarification of the rules are not discussed. All references to Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, OMC, OMCS, Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety, Interstate Commerce Commission, ICC, and Commission, are replaced with “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration” and “FMCSA.” All references to Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers are replaced with “Administrator”; Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards is replaced with “Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations”; Office of Motor Carrier Information Analysis is replaced with “Office of Data Analysis and Information Systems”; and Licensing and Insurance Division is replaced with “Licensing Team” or “Insurance Compliance”.

All references to Regional Director of Motor Carriers are replaced with “Field Administrator,” “Division Administrator,” or “State Director”; Safety Technology and Information Management Division, HHS-10, and HHS-30 are replaced with “Office of Enforcement and Compliance (MC-ECH)”; HCC-10 Docket Room, Hazardous Materials Routing Dispute Resolution Docket are replaced with “Office of the Chief Counsel (MC-CC).”

We updated incorrect authority citations. We removed and reserved § 384.303 relating to State certification for FY1994 because it is no longer needed. Paragraph (c) of § 387.323 is updated to allow specifically for online insurance filings and cancellations by registered insurance and surety companies and financial institutions over the Internet. We are also removing, without replacement, paragraph (a)(4) of § 390.19, because it relates to past dates which are no longer relevant.

This final rule makes only minor technical corrections to existing regulations. The rule replaces outdated language with terms more consistent with current statutory authority and codifies the transfer of regulatory responsibilities from the FHWA and the former OMCS within the DOT to the FMCSA. Substantive regulatory standards are not being changed in any way. Therefore, the FMCSA finds good cause to adopt the rule without prior notice or opportunity for public comment [5 U.S.C. 553(b)]. The rule imposes no new burdens and merely corrects or clarifies existing regulations. Therefore, good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date requirement and the FMCSA is making the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. Since this rulemaking action makes only technical corrections to the current regulations, it is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities (i.e., motor carriers). Based on the evaluation, and since the rule merely corrects obsolete references and places no new requirements on the regulated industry, the FMCSA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

This action 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 action 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 safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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 action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined this action does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

This action does not contain information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. On January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338), the levels of allowable biological catch (ABC), the optimum yield (OY) and the commercial OY (the OY minus the tribal allocation) for U.S. harvests of whiting were announced in the Federal Register. For 2001 the whiting ABC and OY are 190,400 metric tons (mt) and the commercial OY is 162,900 mt.

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4) divide the commercial OY into separate allocations for the non-tribal catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors of the whiting fishery. The catcher/processor sector is composed of vessels that harvest and process whiting. The mothership sector is composed of motherships, and catcher vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to motherships. Motherships are vessels that process, but do not harvest. The shoreside sector is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to shoreside processors. Each of these sectors receives a portion of the commercial OY. In 2001, the catcher/processors received 34 percent, motherships received 24 percent, and the shore-based sector received 42 percent. When applied to the commercial OY for 2001, this resulted in the following allocations: 55,386 mt for the catcher/processors, 39,096 mt for the motherships, and 68,418 mt for the shore-based sector.

NMFS announced the end of the 2001 primary season for the shore-based Pacific whiting fishery at noon August 21, 2001, because the shore-based allocation was projected to be reached at that time. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(3)(i) describe the primary season for the shore-based sector as the period(s) when the large-scale target fishery is conducted. Before and after the primary seasons, per-trip limits under § 660.323 (b) are in effect for whiting.

On August 31, 2001, NMFS received notification from the tribal fishery participants indicating that 10,000 mts of the tribal allocation was not expected to be harvested before the end of the fishing year. As a result, on September 20, 2001 (66 FR 48370), NMFS announced the reapportionment of the 10,000 mt surplus whiting from the tribal allocation to the catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors. The catcher/processors received an additional 3,400 mt (34 percent), the motherships received an additional 2,400 mt (24 percent), and the shore-based sector received an additional 4,200 mt (42 percent). To provide the shore-based participants access to the reapportioned whiting, the primary season for the shore-based whiting fishery resumed at noon September 17, 2001.

The best available information on September 24, 2001, indicates that 71,092 mt had been taken through September 23, 2001, and that the 72,618 mt (68,418 mt + 4,200) shore-based allowance would be reached by 8 p.m. l.t. September 26, 2001. This Federal Register document announces the date that the primary season for the shore-based sector ends, and that per-trip limits are imposed. The per-trip limit is intended to accommodate small bait and fresh fish markets, and bycatch in other fisheries. To minimize incidental catch of chinook salmon by vessels fishing shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) contour in the Eureka area, at any time during a fishing trip, a limit of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of whiting is in effect year-round (unless landings of whiting are prohibited).

For the reasons stated above, and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4)(iii)(C), NMFS herein announces:

Effective 8 p.m. l.t. September 26, 2001, no more than 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed or landed by a catcher vessel participating in the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery. If a vessel fishes shoreward of the 100 fm (183 m) contour in the Eureka area (43°- 40°30′ N. lat.) at any time during a fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536 kg) trip limit applies, as announced in the annual management measures at paragraph IV, B (3)(c)(ii).

This action is authorized by the regulations implementing the FMP. The determination to take this action is based on the most recent data available. The aggregate data upon which the determination is based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) during business hours. This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4)(iii)(C) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.